Is the latest morality the best?

[goout]

**There is no measurable, objective morality, only personal opinions. **
…
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 thinking is contradictory.
If there is no objective morality, what does it matter if I put other people in danger?
:whacky:

It seems to me you’re proposing the dignity of the human person as an absolute, however unwittingly it may be.
Good for you. It’s a start.

Or is the dignity of the human person founded on your opinion. If it’s your opinion, then I can ignore it in favor of my own?
Maybe I believe that as long as my family benefits (two consenting adults!), I can expel the Jews from the shop down the street. After all, they’re not being hurt really. They just don’t know what’s good for them. In my opinion, of course.

It’s too bad history can’t be absorbed by just putting the book up side the head of our young people. Cause whatever they’re doing ain’t workin.

 

[goout]

Take a pill and get some sleep?

Recommended bedtime reading for the Catho-curious:
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And in the past you acknowledged to me that you were trying to understand this “Relative Absolute Morality” concept.

George Orwell described the concept of “doublethink” which would come to your help:War is Peace!
Freedom is Slavery!
Ignorance is Strength!
He could have added, but did not:Relative is Absolute!
I guess, he considered it too bizarre even in Newspeak.

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

Some are BOTH! You say? After all that is what makes Catholicism so formidable to argue against, it dispenses with the “fundamentalist” either-or dichotomy and embraces the “paradigm of BOTH”… - Or so sez you. But the Pope disagrees, and so are all the rational people.

It is NOT fundamentalism to say that “War in NOT Peace” and “Freedom is NOT Slavery” and “Ignorance is NOT Strength”… and finally: “Relative is NOT Absolute”. Savvy?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is NOT fundamentalism to say that “War in NOT Peace” and “Freedom is NOT Slavery” and “Ignorance is NOT Strength”… and finally: “Relative is NOT Absolute”. Savvy?

No savvy!

It is an ABSOLUTE that “Relative is NOT Absolute.”

How is it you don’t get this?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Recommended bedtime reading for the Catho-curious:
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

This from Saint John Paul’s Veritatis Splendor:

“Today, however, it seems necessary to reflect on the whole of the Church’s moral teaching, with the precise goal of recalling certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within the Christian community itself, which has experienced the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the Church’s moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions. At the root of these presuppositions is the more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth. Thus the traditional doctrine regarding the natural law, and the universality and the permanent validity of its precepts, is rejected; certain of the Church’s moral teachings are found simply unacceptable; and the Magisterium itself is considered capable of intervening in matters of morality only in order to “exhort consciences” and to “propose values”, in the light of which each individual will independently make his or her decisions and life choices.”

What John Paul is warning us about is the growing tendency of certain theologians within the Church to Protestantize the Church’s fundamental teachings.

This tendency has been noted by several Protestants in this forum and has been used as a tactic to divide Catholics against each other. Divide and conquer is indeed an effective tactic. I don’t believe Pope Francis believes the Catholic Church should be divided and conquered.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The thinking is contradictory.
If there is no objective morality, what does it matter if I put other people in danger?

There is only one ethical principle that survived the test of time, and that is the “golden rule” (in its negative form): “don’t do unto others that you would not want them to do unto you”. That is as universal as it can get. And the reason behind it is very solid. In popular form: “what goes around, comes around”. If you treat others decently, they will treat you decently. It is in your best interest to have good relationship with others.

But this concept is very generic, it might not help you in specific cases. Is it “objectively” moral to keep others in slavery (or indentured servitude)? In the Biblical times it was considered acceptable, or “moral” behavior. Today it is not. So is it “moral”? But be careful. As soon as you say: “that was then, and this now”, you admit to moral relativism.

Don’t make the same mistake as some others do, who advocate “Relative Absolutes”, or those who exhibit an impoverished understanding of elementary logic.

Maybe I believe that as long as my family benefits (two consenting adults!), I can expel the Jews from the shop down the street. After all, they’re not being hurt really. They just don’t know what’s good for them. In my opinion, of course.

Your understanding of “being hurt really” needs to be updated. Sure, you are free to believe this, but be aware that there will be consequences - if you try to put this opinion into practice. Did you really miss what I said, or do you like to be argumentative, just for the fun of it?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

“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.

There is sign on many office walls: “The lack of foresight on your part does not constitute an emergency (obligation) on my part”.

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.

As Bradski pointed out that would close any conversation between people who have a different religion. He used “Hinduism” as an example. So I will use Catholicism, which is NOT a monolithic construct. Some Catholics believe that premarital sex or contraception or homosexual behavior are inherently sinful, while others disagree.

How are you going to resolve this problem? You can bring up the teachings of the church, but the other side might not accept this. What else can you do? As I asked before, do you have a “morality-gauge”, which will separate the wheat from the chaff - regardless of who employs it? As Ed pointed out, to measure the pressure in the tires can be measured objectively. It does not matter if we use his gauge or mine, they will show the same result.

If you don’t have such a “gauge”, then it boils down to opinion. (And here I just talked about Catholicism. There are the different Christian churches, the other religions and even atheism.)

 

[o_mlly]

There is sign on many office walls: “The lack of foresight on your part does not constitute an emergency (obligation) on my part”.

And your point is?

As Bradski pointed out that would close any conversation between people who have a different religion. He used “Hinduism” as an example.

• If a human need exists then a human right exists.
• If a human right exists then a reciprocal obligation to respect and respond exists in oneself, in another or in the community.

Why can’t a productive conversation on morality on any and all agreed human needs not proceed based on the above argument between a Christian and a Hindu?

So I will use Catholicism, which is NOT a monolithic construct. Some Catholics believe that premarital sex or contraception or homosexual behavior are inherently sinful, while others disagree.

Those who disagree are not Catholic. You are mistaken – Catholicism is monolithic in its required beliefs. “Monolithic” means “one rock”: St. Peter and his successors.

How are you going to resolve this problem? You can bring up the teachings of the church, but the other side might not accept this. What else can you do? As I asked before, do you have a “morality-gauge”, which will separate the wheat from the chaff - regardless of who employs it? As Ed pointed out, to measure the pressure in the tires can be measured objectively. It does not matter if we use his gauge or mine, they will show the same result.

We have a “gauge”; we call it the Magisterium.

If you don’t have such a “gauge”, then it boils down to opinion. (And here I just talked about Catholicism. There are the different Christian churches, the other religions and even atheism.)

The non-Catholic Christian churches have as many moral systems as they have denominations.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As Bradski pointed out that would close any convers ation between people who have a different religion. He used “Hinduism” as an example. So I will use Catholicism, which is NOT a monolithic construct. Some Catholics believe that premarital sex or contraception or homosexual behavior are inherently sinful, while others disagree.

I’m afraid you share with Bradski the delusion that the Catholic Church is a democracy, and that every opinion is as good as every other opinion among Catholics. This is not so. The reason the chaos of Protestantism emerged historically is that Protestants wanted the freedom to believe just as they pleased. That chaos is ongoing. There are very few principles about which the totality of Protestants agree. But the official teachings of the Catholic Church are monolithic.

You guys need to get used to it and stop head counting to find out what some Catholics may erroneously believe as opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[goout]

Your understanding of “being hurt really” needs to be updated. Sure, you are free to believe this, but be aware that there will be consequences - if you try to put this opinion into practice. Did you really miss what I said, or do you like to be argumentative, just for the fun of it?

This is your paradigm not mine.
This is what your morality leads to:
A numbing of the moral conscience, a blindness to the dignity and needs of persons, to the point where morality is applied to humans in the same way as pets.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And your point is?

That “needs” do not create “rights”

• If a human need exists then a human right exists.
• If a human right exists then a reciprocal obligation to respect and respond exists in oneself, in another or in the community.

Why can’t a productive conversation on morality on any and all agreed human needs not proceed based on the above argument between a Christian and a Hindu?

It would be possible, if both parties accept it as a foundation. Personally I stick with the aforementioned principle: “needs” do not create “rights”.

Those who disagree are not Catholic. You are mistaken – Catholicism is monolithic in its required beliefs. “Monolithic” means “one rock”: St. Peter and his successors.

Come on. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. The baptism leaves an “indelible” mark on the person’s “soul”. The point is that not every Catholic accepts those “required” beliefs. What can the church do about it? Excommunicate every dissenter?

We have a “gauge”; we call it the Magisterium.

Sure. But what about those who have a different “gauge”, which yields a different result? How can we agree on the “morality” of a problem if there is a discrepancy in the “measurements”?

The non-Catholic Christian churches have as many moral systems as they have denominations.

I see. So there are many different “moral” systems. I have no problem with this result.

Now, there is an almost 100% universally accepted principle, the “golden rule”, especially the “negative” version of it. I would surmise that it would be a very good candidate for mutually acceptable “common ground”. I say “almost universally accepted” because mentally retarded people, psychopaths and sociopaths will not accept anything. What do you think?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This is your paradigm not mine.
This is what your morality leads to:
A numbing of the moral conscience, a blindness to the dignity and needs of persons, to the point where morality is applied to humans in the same way as pets.

I would appreciate if you did not twist my words. Is that too much to ask for?

 

[goout]

I would appreciate if you did not twist my words. Is that too much to ask for?

Your words speak for themselves.
Please be specific in your reply.

 

[inocente]

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

It isn’t moral according to CCC 1753, which says it’s intrinsically disordered, and the end does not justify the means.

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

All things are, by definition. Moral absolutism is the claim that certain actions are always right or always wrong whatever the context. Moral relativism denies that claim.

For instance, if Catholic morality says the end never justifies the means, under any circumstance, then that’s a moral absolute.

 

[inocente]

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?

Morally, the act is the same if white men had beat up a black man, or black men beat up a black man, or white men beat up a white man. The act was that men beat up a man, period. Skin color is irrelevant and mentioning it just inflames tribalism. America was once very tribal, even to the extent of one tribe crossing the oceans to enslave another, and has gradually become less so, to the extent that for many, the two tribes are now one. This is good, for that’s moving toward how God planned it to be. Agreed?

 

[o_mlly]

That “needs” do not create “rights”

Perhaps you confuse human “wants” with human “needs.” Human “needs” are based on our natural desires; human “wants” on our acquired desires. All human beings have the same specifically human needs, whereas individuals differ from one another as to human wants. For instance, human beings are social by nature and as social creatures need to live in community. Therefore, all human beings possess civil rights.

It would be possible, if both parties accept it as a foundation. Personally I stick with the aforementioned principle: “needs” do not create “rights”.

I trust you will rethink your position.

Come on. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. The baptism leaves an “indelible” mark on the person’s “soul”. The point is that not every Catholic accepts those “required” beliefs. What can the church do about it? Excommunicate every dissenter?

The dissenters excommunicate themselves.

Sure. But what about those who have a different “gauge”, which yields a different result? How can we agree on the “morality” of a problem if there is a discrepancy in the “measurements”?

Easy, first agree first on the existence of a human need. The “measurement” will become relevant only to the extent or the quantity of the good required to satisfy the agreed upon need.

I see. So there are many different “moral” systems. I have no problem with this result.

If one believes that the truth in morality is singular and independent of the way people think about it then one does have a problem with multiple moral systems.

Now, there is an almost 100% universally accepted principle, the “golden rule”, especially the “negative” version of it. I would surmise that it would be a very good candidate for mutually acceptable “common ground”. I say “almost universally accepted” because mentally retarded people, psychopaths and sociopaths will not accept anything. What do you think?

The “golden rule” like the “categorical imperative” are both empty of content and leave morality in the sphere of the subjective rather than objective.

 

[goout]

Human needs are revealed in who we are as human beings.
A human being is a unity of body and rational soul.

For instance: Because a human being has a body, a human being has needs that serve the existence and flourishing of that body.
If I am to continue living, I have a need for food and water. Because this need for food and water is proper to my existence as a human being, I have a right to resources that should not be legitimately denied.
I do not have a right to food and water simply because I make a claim to it (wants). I want a free hamburger right now.
I have a right to food and water because of who I am objectively, a human being with a body that needs it to survive.
And I do not have a right to food and water because popular opinion agrees with me. It might, and it might not. The need and the right are present regardless of opinion.

Any reasonable human being can see the disaster that results when this moral reality is perverted to “opinion”, or equated with other valuable but lesser goods, like the legitimate welfare of animals.

This is what Mengele got really wrong.
Science is good. Animals can serve science in a humane way through experimentation etc…In his opinion, it was good for some human beings to serve the flourishing of others through animal-like experimentation.

But human beings have unique dignity and value that is not equable to any other creature.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If race relations have deteriorated in America, as Whites and blacks are likely to agree, it is because mortality has deteriorated. There is no other explanation. Racial hatred is alive and thriving on both sides, of this there can be no doubt.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If race relations have deteriorated in America, as Whites and blacks are likely to agree, it is because **mortality **has deteriorated. There is no other explanation. Racial hatred is alive and thriving on both sides, of this there can be no doubt.

Correction:

If race relations have deteriorated in America, as Whites and blacks are likely to agree, it is because **morality **has deteriorated. There is no other explanation. Racial hatred is alive and thriving on both sides, of this there can be no doubt.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

All human beings have the same specifically human needs…

Please, enumerate them. I mean which are those specifically “human” needs which are present in each and every human being. I can only think of the list which describes ALL the living beings, namely to have some “energy” (name removed by moderator)ut and a non-lethal environment. But since “nature” does not care to provide even that minimum, all you have is an: “it would be nice to have it”-kind of “pie in the sky”.

For instance, human beings are social by nature and as social creatures need to live in community. Therefore, all human beings possess civil rights.

There is no “therefore”. Can you show that there is?

Humans are both individuals and social beings - that is correct. But from this it does not follow that there are “civil rights”. As a matter of fact, “rights” don’t grow on trees , “rights” are social constructs. When we talk about a “right”, it means that you will not be persecuted/punished to act in a certain manner (or cannot be persecuted/punished for NOT acting in a certain manner). Different societies provide a different set of “rights”. And to add insult to injury, many times they are unable to protect those “rights”.

Furthermore, there are negative rights - the right to be left alone, and positive rights - to have access to something. Positive rights always place a responsibility on on someone else who is required to perform a certain action, or provide a certain service to you, even if you cannot “pay” for it.

I trust you will rethink your position.

If you can give some actual arguments, I will consider them.

The dissenters excommunicate themselves.

I rather doubt it. They still consider themselves Catholics, the church allows them to partake in the communion.

Easy, first agree first on the existence of a human need. The “measurement” will become relevant only to the extent or the quantity of the good required to satisfy the agreed upon need.

Not easy, but what you say still requires a list of human needs that everyone can agree upon.

If one believes that the truth in morality is singular and independent of the way people think about it then one does have a problem with multiple moral systems.

But that is clearly not the case. And wishing it does not make it happen. For example, many people (Catholics, too) do NOT believe that non-procreative sex is somehow “immoral”.

The “golden rule” like the “categorical imperative” are both empty of content and leave morality in the sphere of the subjective rather than objective.

A guideline is just that, some generic principle, which can help in the particular cases. The principle of “golden rule” is the best candidate, since it has been accepted since time immemorial. The Kantian “categorical imperative” is a relatively new idea, and many people don’t accept it.

Now, it is obvious that most of the time it is mutually beneficial to respect each other, to cooperate with each other, to help each other. But not “always”… there can be exceptions. So, even though there will be exceptions, usually the best strategy is cooperation - as the fundamental basis of a “morality” system. But from this principle only a handful “rules” will follow - and most of them are reflected in the legal system.