Is the latest morality the best?

[Bradski]

Kudos to Ed who best represents what the Pope said:

When I find a solution to a problem, that’s the solution. Catholic teaching has that.

That seems entirely reasonable. We may end up with different answers but if we are all come to them with honest intent and reasonable arguments, then I see no problem with that.

 

[o_mlly]

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?

“Ought” becomes “is” only after one separates human needs from human wants. When a human need exists then a reciprocal obligation to provide exists either in oneself, in another or in the community.

If you do not agree with the Catholic list of human needs, primarily the need to know, love, serve and eventually be with God, then there is no purpose served in debating morality.

 

[Bradski]

If you do not agree with the Catholic list of human needs, primarily the need to know, love, serve and eventually be with God, then there is no purpose served in debating morality.

So there is no point in you debating morality with, for example, a Hindu. How would you explain that to him?

 

[o_mlly]

So there is no point in you debating morality with, for example, a Hindu. How would you explain that to him?

More specifically, there is no point in debating morality with anyone without prior agreement of some specific human needs. Obligations, “oughts,” only derive from needs. I have no obligation to participate in obtaining for you a brand new red car with the driving wheel on the wrong side but I do have an obligation to see that you are fed.

 

[Bradski]

More specifically, there is no point in debating morality with anyone without prior agreement of some specific human needs. Obligations, “oughts,” only derive from needs. I have no obligation to participate in obtaining for you a brand new red car with the driving wheel on the wrong side but I do have an obligation to see that you are fed.

What happened to primarily knowing, loving, serving and eventually being with God? Your ‘more specific’ definition has skipped that bit.

I guess that’s just applicable to Christians. You should have made that clear.

 

[o_mlly]

What happened to primarily knowing, loving, serving and eventually being with God? Your ‘more specific’ definition has skipped that bit.

I guess that’s just applicable to Christians. You should have made that clear.

Are you attempting to impose your morality on me?

My statement remains true. If you re-read the post, note it begins, “If you do not agree with the Catholic list of human needs …” which includes feeding the hungry.

 

[Bradski]

Are you attempting to impose your morality on me?

My statement remains true. If you re-read the post, note it begins, “If you do not agree with the Catholic list of human needs …” which includes feeding the hungry.

You’ve missed the rest of the quote out again: ‘…primarily etc etc’.

Is it still valid for everyone? In which case I’m still not sure how you defend that position with, for example, a Hindu. I can’t actually imagine that you could. Or indeed would want to.

It doesn’t seem rational that, for example, a Hindu, would not have an (name removed by moderator)ut on any discussion regarding morality. But your statement would exclude him.

 

[PRmerger]

More specifically, there is no point in debating morality with anyone without prior agreement of some specific human needs. Obligations, “oughts,” only derive from needs. I have no obligation to participate in obtaining for you a brand new red car with the driving wheel on the wrong side but I do have an obligation to see that you are fed.

And I would add: there is no point in debating morality if there isn’t an Absolute to which we are trying to get the other to apprehend.

But atheists do debate morality.

And that’s because we all know they do believe that their position is right…and it’s not simply a preference, like butter pecan ice cream.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Yep.

So here’s question Q: is there ever a time when it’s permissible to kill a man because you want to have sex with his wife?

Answer A: hell no.

QED.

 

[o_mlly]

You’ve missed the rest of the quote out again: ‘…primarily etc etc’.

Is it still valid for everyone? In which case I’m still not sure how you defend that position with, for example, a Hindu. I can’t actually imagine that you could. Or indeed would want to.

It doesn’t seem rational that, for example, a Hindu, would not have an (name removed by moderator)ut on any discussion regarding morality. But your statement would exclude him.

Where are we going here? You’re a bit argumentative today/tomorrow (is it Saturday down under already?) Are you trying to parse my post into pointlessness?

“Primarily” means fundamentally. The summum bonum is the fundamental Catholic understanding of the human person’s ultimate need. All other human needs (“the list”) spring from this truth but non-Catholics can agree with Catholics on one or more items on “the list” w/o agreeing to the fundamental need.

The point is that the Hindu and I have to agree before we can disagree. On questions of morality, productive debate.can only occur subsequent to an agreement on the specific human need from which that moral obligation exists. “Oughts” are meaningless in the absence of “is.”

 

[Bradski]

Yep.

So here’s question Q: is there ever a time when it’s permissible to kill a man because you want to have sex with his wife?

Answer A: hell no.

QED.

I think it’s already been pointed out the problem in having these discussions when those posting don’t understand the difference between absolute moral positions (killing is wrong) and relative moral positions (killing is wrong in certain circumstances).

Not that I should need to explain it, I did so a few posts ago. Please read it again and let me know if you don’t understand it.

 

[PRmerger]

I think it’s already been pointed out the problem in having these discussions when those posting don’t understand the difference between absolute moral positions (killing is wrong) and relative moral positions (killing is wrong in certain circumstances).

Not that I should need to explain it, I did so a few posts ago. Please read it again and let me know if you don’t understand it.

We’ve had this discussion before, Bradski. And in the past you acknowledged to me that you were trying to understand this “Relative Absolute Morality” concept.

Now you’re saying you don’t understand.

Review: just because there are some things which are Moral Absolutes does not mean that EVERYTHING (in the moral world) is Absolute.

So…MORAL ABSOLUTE do exist.

*And we all know that you believe this. * (Unless you can tell us when it would be permissible to drag your wife around by her hair because you’re pissed off that she burned your breakfast?)

And the fact that there are some morally relative situations (it might be moral pretend to be a woman seeking an abortion so you can videotape the horrific threat to tiny human lives that is going on at Planned Parenthood) doesn’t mean that things are Morally Relative Only.

Stop with the Fundamentalist type thinking that all things moral are either Morally Relative OR Morally Absolute.

 

[Bradski]

The point is that the Hindu and I have to agree before we can disagree. On questions of morality, productive debate.can only occur subsequent to an agreement on the specific human need from which that moral obligation exists.

Then no discussion will take place. A Hindu would not agree with what you are now calling the ‘fundamental’ needs. which were, as you stated, to know, love, serve and eventually be with God.

If you removed those specific requirements, then I can’t see why you couldn’t have a constructive debate with Hindus. Or anyone else who didn’t believe in God.

Leave them in and you are specifically denying the opportunity to have that discussion. As you said, if you don’t agree with those fundamentals, there’s no point in having the debate.

 

[o_mlly]

Then no discussion will take place. A Hindu would not agree with what you are now calling the ‘fundemental’ needs. which were, as you stated, to know, love, serve and eventually be with God.

If you removed those specific requirements, then I can’t see why you couldn’t have a constructive debate with Hindus. Or anyone else who didn’t believe in God.

Leave them in and you are specifically denying the opportunity to have that discussion. As you said, if you don’t agree with those fundementals, there’s no point in having the debate.

Now you’re just being silly. Get some sleep, it must be late in Sydney.

If the Hindu and I agree that humans need to eat then we can discuss our obligations to see that humans are fed.

 

[Bradski]

So…MORAL ABSOLUTE do exist.

The pope and I disagree.

‘…Pope Francis condemned Catholics who believe in “absolute truths”, and labelled them as “fundamentalists”.’

 

[PRmerger]

The pope and I disagree.

‘…Pope Francis condemned Catholics who believe in “absolute truths”, and labelled them as “fundamentalists”.’

Here it is, folks, the icon I rarely use…

wait for it…

wait for it…



I can’t believe what some atheists will believe and be duped by.

Surely you can’t be fooled into thinking that Pope Francis doesn’t believe in absolute truths.

Surely.

 

[goout]

For those reading through the tail chasing here and wanting to read a good sense of Catholic morality, absolutes, objective moral norms etc…
This is a good place to start.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

It can be a bit thick, but hey, if clarity of thought was easy everyone would have it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

You are still suffering the delusion that Catholics who disagree with each other have not got access to absolute morality through the Church. You still think the Church is a democracy? It is not. It is a monarchy, with Christ the King at its head.

Get over it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

And I suppose you think the savage beating up of a white man by a mob of black men in a parking garage in Charlotte two days ago also reflects a moral improvement in racial relations in America? And that there was **nothing absolutely wrong **with that sort of thing?

You are not even a progressive. You are a reactionary. You want to return to the past, only now you think lynching whites must be an improvement over lynching blacks?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The pope and I disagree.

‘…Pope Francis condemned Catholics who believe in “absolute truths”, and labelled them as “fundamentalists”.’

Take a pill and get some sleep?