Is the latest morality the best?

[PRmerger]

Purely personal decisions without reference to moral authority are just personal decisions, they are not necessarily moral.

Indeed. They are akin to tastes or preferences.

“I think turnip are *unpleasant *when they are boiled rather than mashed!”
“It’s *distasteful *to me to eat turnips without butter!”

“I think it’s* unpleasant* when an infant is killed for having a cleft lip!”
“It’s *distasteful *to me to have a man drag his wife around by her hair when she burns his breakfast!”

However, when one uses objective moral standards we can say:

“It is absolutely wrong to kill an infant for having a cleft lip”.
“It is morally repugnant to have a man drag his wife around by her hair when she burns his breakfast.”

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But this is an absolute to you: lucid rational adults should be allowed to make decisions about themselves.

I think you should learn the difference between an “absolute” and a “conditional” statement.

Absolute means “always, under any condition” or “A is true”.
Conditional means “sometimes, under certain condition” or “IF X, then A is true”.

Maybe you don’t realize that the expression “lucid, rational people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves” is really just an abbreviation for “IF a person is lucid and rational, THEN she should be allowed to make decisions for herself”. It is a conditional statement, not an absolute one. Savvy?

 

[goout]

I think you should learn the difference between an “absolute” and a “conditional” statement.

Absolute means “always, under any condition” or “A is true”.
Conditional means “sometimes, under certain condition” or “IF X, then A is true”.

Maybe you don’t realize that the expression “lucid, rational people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves” is really just an abbreviation for “IF a person is lucid and rational, THEN she should be allowed to make decisions for herself”. It is a conditional statement, not an absolute one. Savvy?

So then you believe that under and and all conditions, “IF a person is lucid and rational, THEN she should be allowed to make decisions for herself”.

You can perhaps see the problem and the correctness of PR’s observation that your morality is absolutely subjective.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Again! Cruel and wicked. Subjective words.

Why not simply use “moral” and “immoral”, prefaced or postscripted with, “in my opinion”.

We all know what cruel and wicked means. There is no consensus on what constitutes a “moral” or “immoral” behavior.

When you consider it immoral if two people of the same gender express their love for each other in a sexual fashion, then your concept of “moral” and “immoral” are so different from mine, that these words become meaningless.

 

[goout]

We all know what cruel and wicked means. There is no consensus on what constitutes a “moral” or “immoral” behavior.

Then morality is at a peak when more people evaluate human acts, for instance by taking part in discussions like this.

Seems contradictory to me.
Can the objective good be found outside of consensus (or “might makes right”)?

For instance, in regard to the sanctity, dignity, and affirmation of human life, is it appropriate to subject the value of a human being to the degree of suffering or the age of the human being?

Is a human being a subject of those things, or does the human being have a value that transcends those things?
What do you say?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We all know what cruel and wicked means. There is no consensus on what constitutes a “moral” or “immoral” behavior.

When you consider it immoral if two people of the same gender express their love for each other in a sexual fashion, then your concept of “moral” and “immoral” are so different from mine, that these words become meaningless.

Though sodomy has been practiced among every nation, never in the history of the world in any nation was it ever imagined, until now, that same-sex marriage was a rational relationship. So there is a problem with that, isn’t there? If it was rational and loving, why wouldn’t the institution of same-sex marriage have been invented and promoted long ago in every culture, rather than being a product of the recent lunacy?

So I will ask again the question you either refused to answer or did not see earlier:

Are you O.K. with the slaughter of 45 millions of babies in their mother’s womb in recent times in America alone? Is that also an instance of moral progress in our time?

 

[inocente]

We all want people to make decisions. We do make decisions. Fact of life.
That’s not the point. Here’s the point:
Morality that is subject to popular opinion is not morality at all, as it’s decision making is out of reference to the objective good. It merely sways in the breeze with popular opinion and vague notions of happiness and “what is best for people”.

Hang on, you know what is objectively good but you don’t trust the rest of us to know? So your objective good is that we ought to do what you tell us?

Another name for popular opinion is “might makes right”.

No, another name is freedom. And another is democracy.

Maybe what you are trying to say is that moral behavior reigns to a greater degree when more people evaluate human acts in accordance with the objective good…

I meant what I wrote. If you’re even trying to tell me what I ought to have written then you’ve already decided you’re the moral authority .

*More people evaluating human acts does not necessarily equate to sound morality. If the “more” is iinclined toward evil, then good does not result. And obtaining “the good” is the aim of morality.

You have to make a decision, true.
Purely personal decisions without reference to moral authority are just personal decisions, they are not necessarily moral.*

Then your reference must be to me as your moral authority, because without my authority good does not result. And as your authority, I tell you that morality which doesn’t trust others is not morality.

 

[o_mlly]

Morality is universal. Men are men and women are women. …]
Have hope. Pray. God is in this and ready to help all who call on Him.

Ed

 

[inocente]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=23463&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1474383713

Does that mean you’re saying the objective morality is that it’s objectively good for everyone to wear makeup, or that it’s objectively evil for anyone to wear makeup, or that it’s objectively good for women to wear make-up and objectively morally evil for men to wear make-up?

Or that wearing make-up is not actually a moral question?

Is it instead that objective morality proclaims it’s good for women to cry but evil for men to cry? The world needs to know more of this amazing objective morality.

 

[goout]

Hang on, you know what is objectively good but you don’t trust the rest of us to know? So your objective good is that we ought to do what you tell us?

Lemme just stop right here and observe you don’t know what is meant by objective good. It’s precisely the point that morality is not subjective to personal whim. So, it is not my objective good. If it were my good it would be subject to me. No.

That is the whole point here.

 

[inocente]

Lemme just stop right here and observe you don’t know what is meant by objective good. It’s precisely the point that morality is not subjective to personal whim. So, it is not my objective good. If it were my good it would be subject to me. No.

That is the whole point here.

No, the whole point here is that God gave me a conscience, and God never commanded me to ignore my God-given conscience and instead do what you tell me.

 

[goout]

No, the whole point here is that God gave me a conscience, and God never commanded me to ignore my God-given conscience and instead do what you tell me.

You misunderstand also.
It is not the point that you do what I tell you. Noone is suggesting that. You are reflexively responding to claim that is not made here.
I can help form your conscience, but your conscience belongs uniquely to you.

To the degree your conscience follows the objective good, it is well formed. If your conscience agrees with mine in that pursuit, great. If it does not, one of us is in err.

Did Stalin have a conscience?
Answer: yes he did. It was poorly formed but he followed it to the detriment of many people.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you should learn the difference between an “absolute” and a “conditional” statement.

Absolute means “always, under any condition” or “A is true”.
Conditional means “sometimes, under certain condition” or “IF X, then A is true”.

Maybe you don’t realize that the expression “lucid, rational people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves” is really just an abbreviation for “IF a person is lucid and rational, THEN she should be allowed to make decisions for herself”. It is a conditional statement, not an absolute one. Savvy?

If the conditions are met, then there are no exceptions for you?

Is that a correct explication of your position?

 

[PRmerger]

We all know what cruel and wicked means.

Really?

So is it wicked or not to kill someone when he is asking to be killed?

I say, along with many others, YES.

You seem to be saying, NO.

…Although you also seem unsure–you assert that it’s the** intent that matters, and if the intention is NOT to kill then it’s permissible. It sounds like you do know, at the core of your heart, that it would indeed be…WICKED….to intend to kill **a terminally ill person.

(That’s the natural law planted in your heart by God that is speaking, BTW)

There is no consensus on what constitutes a “moral” or “immoral” behavior.

So are you saying that if a person says, “I think it’s perfectly fine to rape a woman if I want to have sex and she’s available!” that there may be some question as to whether this is moral?

When you consider it immoral if two people of the same gender express their love for each other in a sexual fashion, then your concept of “moral” and “immoral” are so different from mine, that these words become meaningless.

I don’t think they become meaningless at all…and the fact that you are using it to make your point limns quite obviously that YOU don’t find them meaningless either.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, the fog of war. I was thinking a range of factors. We know more now. Soldiers who might have been put in front of a firing squad for cowardice in WWI are now treated for PTSD. Then, after Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan we’re a lot less likely to just run off to war thinking our leaders know what they’re doing and have God on their side. And with the internet it’s much harder for generals to manage propaganda. These, imho, are all advances.

Propaganda is all over the internet. Soldiers will continue to go to war. PTSD has another factor in it. What was once called being “shell shocked” or suffering from “combat fatigue” has now become something more deadly.

Our leaders can only tell us so much. Soldiers are fighting for our country, no matter who is in charge. Propaganda is invisible if carried out “correctly.” I think too many people don’t know or don’t want to know, about current and ongoing threats, much less the increasing amount of information released in specialized publications about future threats. The internet is under constant surveillance.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

Lemme just stop right here and observe you don’t know what is meant by objective good. It’s precisely the point that morality is not subjective to personal whim. So, it is not my objective good. If it were my good it would be subject to me. No.

That is the whole point here.

Then what actually is the point in declaring that there are absolute and objective truths if no-one is in a position to know them.

Do you know them? In which case we can defer to you in matters of morality. Or are the positions you hold only your interpretations of this objective and absolute truth? Your opinion, in other words.

Or maybe God tells us all via our conscience. Which can be a problem if my conscience tells me something which conflicts with yours. Unless your conscience is ‘well formed’, in which case we can go back to deferring to you.

 

[goout]

Then what actually is the point in declaring that there are absolute and objective truths if no-one is in a position to know them.

Disingenuous.
You make many nuanced arguments from what I read here, and I am sure you know that I did not say, or intend to say, that truth cannot be known.
Perhaps you could reread the words in good faith.

 

[Bradski]

Disingenuous.
You make many nuanced arguments from what I read here, and I am sure you know that I did not say, or intend to say, that truth cannot be known.
Perhaps you could reread the words in good faith.

So who knows it? Where is this oracle? I have some problems I need solved. Where do I get this absolute truth and how do I know when I have got it?

If these questions cannot be answered, then the whole discussion is pointless.

 

[goout]

So who knows it? Where is this oracle? I have some problems I need solved. Where do I get this absolute truth and how do I know when I have got it?

If these questions cannot be answered, then the whole discussion is pointless.

Begs the question, why do you discuss it?

We believe Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. He reveals God to us. He objectively is the moral law, personified.

And that is no answer for you, and in the same breath you bemoan the discussion as pointless, because you don’t have an answer to satisfy you.

Do you really want an answer, or is this some sort of sport?

 

[Aloysium]

One approaches the Truth humbly and with a certain amount of fear, because we cannot take it and we are lost without it. One can only ask, pray to be granted that enlightenment. When one knows the truth, one sees it everywhere.