Is the latest morality the best?

[Charlemagne_III]

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?

Read the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

But first it helps if you believe in God. Without that, all bets are off.

 

[Bradski]

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.

You’re darn tootin’ it’s no answer for me. At least not to any question I asked. But it’s very close to the answer I usually get at this point in the discussion.

It seems that any given Christian will tell me that there is no doubt whatsoever that there exists an absolute truth in matters of morality. That we can’t just make these decisions ourselves. Because, well, that would be ‘personal opinion’ and heaven forbid (perhaps literally) that we should ruminate on these problems, gather all available information and make a decision ourselves. I mean, good grief, where would that get us (at which point, despite it being a rhetorical question, the Christian in question will run off a list of decisions someone once made that all reasonable people could all agree did not belong in the column marked ‘Moral Actions’).

But when it comes to finding out what where the correct answer to esoteric problems of morality can be found, as a practical basis for living a moral life, then it gets a little woolly. A little vague. There is talk of God being the source of morality. That conscience is our guide. That Jesus reveals God to us. That we pray for it. That we read the Catechism. That we must believe in the first instance.

All these answers have a common problem, which is not exactly too subtle, but which seems to be completely ignored by anyone making them. I know that you know what the problem is – it might be a good idea to discuss WHY you choose to ignore that all these answers to the question will result in different answers depending on who is doing the asking. That is blindingly obvious as even Catholics can’t agree on some matters.

And before I finish, let me point out another anomaly: Any matter where you confidently claim there exists an absolute truth, that truth always, and I mean always, seems to match your particular view on the matter. That is, there is nothing that you think that is right which is not Absolutely Right. If that is the case, then you could give me an example of something that is Absolutely Right with which you disagree.

Sounds a ridiculous thing to ask, doesn’t it. Who on earth can believe that something is right and wrong at the same time? But the only other option is that you are right all the time. In which case, you are the go-to guy.

 

[goout]

You’re darn tootin’ it’s no answer for me. At least not to any question I asked. But it’s very close to the answer I usually get at this point in the discussion.

It seems that any given Christian will tell me that there is no doubt whatsoever that there exists an absolute truth in matters of morality. That we can’t just make these decisions ourselves. Because, well, that would be ‘personal opinion’ and heaven forbid (perhaps literally) that we should ruminate on these problems, gather all available information and make a decision ourselves. I mean, good grief, where would that get us (at which point, despite it being a rhetorical question, the Christian in question will run off a list of decisions someone once made that all reasonable people could all agree did not belong in the column marked ‘Moral Actions’).

But when it comes to finding out what where the correct answer to esoteric problems of morality can be found, as a practical basis for living a moral life, then it gets a little woolly. A little vague. There is talk of God being the source of morality. That conscience is our guide. That Jesus reveals God to us. That we pray for it. That we read the Catechism. That we must believe in the first instance.

All these answers have a common problem, which is not exactly too subtle, but which seems to be completely ignored by anyone making them. I know that you know what the problem is – it might be a good idea to discuss WHY you choose to ignore that all these answers to the question will result in different answers depending on who is doing the asking. That is blindingly obvious as even Catholics can’t agree on some matters.

And before I finish, let me point out another anomaly: Any matter where you confidently claim there exists an absolute truth, that truth always, and I mean always, seems to match your particular view on the matter. That is, there is nothing that you think that is right which is not Absolutely Right. If that is the case, then you could give me an example of something that is Absolutely Right with which you disagree.

Sounds a ridiculous thing to ask, doesn’t it. Who on earth can believe that something is right and wrong at the same time? But the only other option is that you are right all the time. In which case, you are the go-to guy.

That’s a lot of onandon for a discussion you consider pointless.

 

[Bradski]

That’s a lot of onandon for a discussion you consider pointless.

Precisely why the onus is on you to show that it isn’t pointless. By, I dunno, responding to the points I brought up?

 

[edwest2]

“Life is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” with apologies to Shakespeare.

Nihilism 101. Or to use a few other phrases that don’t mean anything: “Everthang is everythang.” “It’s all good.” What happens when man becomes god.

But somehow, even knowing the above, something happens. Life does go on.

Ed

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So a single woman who wants to die because she had to have her uterus removed at age 30 and can’t bear children…you would help her in her decision?

She is clearly lucid and rational.

Well, in my “humble” opinion she is NOT rational. Women are supposed to be more than “breeding sacks”, and rational people understand this. But legally she is “sane”, so it is her decision. You see, I operate under the view that people are (or should be) legally allowed to do whatever they wish to do with their own body, and their own life. To quote Cain: “I am not my brother’s (or sister’s) keeper”. I respect their decisions for themselves. Looks like you don’t agree with this approach. What would you propose? Put everyone on suicide watch? After all “you”, or the state (?) knows what is best for us? A NOT insignificant part of “love” is trusting the other person. And that seems to be missing from your attitude.

Wow. So a mom has the right to kill her child. Infanticide?

Not legally - in this day and age. But again, you keep on moving the goalposts. If the child is in constant pain, and there is no hope for recovery, then the humane solution is to kill it… I would demand the same treatment for myself in a similar situation. (Actually it is in my living will.)

Pain tolerance doesn’t mean that pain medication won’t work. There are numerous options for those who are in pain and have been on pain medication for a long time.

You should really investigate this question. It is NOT an urban legend that extended use of painkillers will “dampen” their effectiveness, and eventually they will do more harm than good. After a while they will be ineffective. I agree that as long as medication works, it is best way to go. But if they cease to work, then you would let the person suffer - instead to do what MUST be done, to stop the pain. Killing is NOT the objective of the act, it is a “foreseen, but unintended byproduct”. I understand you and your attitude, but at least you should be honest enough to admit it - something along the lines: “Yes, I would let her suffer, until her life ends in a ‘natural’ fashion”.

If your intent is to suppress the pain, then you shouldn’t need to administer the lethal dose.

You don’t KNOW that. The situation is like shooting the terrorist, IF there is no other option available. Your primary intent is to stop the detonation of the bomb, but it can be only achieved by a deliberate KILL, so that is what one does.

Well, that is the position of despondence taken by some, sadly.

Oh, I bet you have a preference for good and pleasurable existence as compared to a painful, miserable one. If mere “existence” would be valuable in and of itself, then you would not strive to get to heaven… you would be happy with eternal torture in hell… after all that is also “existence”. I don’t think you have thought this through.

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

Is that a correct explication of your position?

If there are further exceptions, they must be included in the conditional statement, until you reach the “IF and ONLY IF X, Y, Z and… THEN A is true”.

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.

I do say it. Unless the person is unable to make rational decisions for themselves, one should respect their choice. You keep on advocating a “nanny-state” kind of approach, to prevent any action that you consider “immoral”, even if it only affects the person who makes the decision.

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.

You don’t get it. The expression “moral” means to be in conformity with SOME ethical system. But since there are many ethical systems “out there”, what one person DESCRIBES as a moral action, someone else will consider immoral. And since the ethical systems are subjective, there is NO objective “morality” (much less an “absolute” one). That is why I avoid the usage of these labels. They add nothing constructive to a conversation.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

One has to wonder, indeed, what is the point?

Oh, wait–there must be a point, since you are here, (and have been for a very long time), arguing as if there is a point.

Clearly, you believe that there is an absolute and objective truth.

And you argue for your point.

Otherwise, no one goes to a forum and argues, for years and years, about whether turnips are better mashed or boiled.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, in my “humble” opinion she is NOT rational.

Really? Wow.

Now you get to tell a person who wants to die that she’s not rational?

Have you really thought this through, Vera?

Surely you see the cognitive dissonance this prompts in us Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

But legally she is “sane”, so it is her decision.

And if she asked you to help her kill herself, would you do it?

You see, I operate under the view that people are (or should be) legally allowed to do whatever they wish to do with their own body, and their own life. To quote Cain: “I am not my brother’s (or sister’s) keeper”. I respect their decisions for themselves. Looks like you don’t agree with this approach. What would you propose?

I propose telling her that she is more than a breeding sack and that she is loved and has an inherent dignity because she is made in God’s image.

What about you?

 

[PRmerger]

If the child is in constant pain, and there is no hope for recovery, then the humane solution is to kill it…

I don’t believe this to be a rational statement.

You should really investigate this question. It is NOT an urban legend that extended use of painkillers will “dampen” their effectiveness, and eventually they will do more harm than good. After a while they will be ineffective.

Nope. There is always treatment for pain that doesn’t involve killing the patient.

I agree that as long as medication works, it is best way to go. But if they cease to work, then you would let the person suffer - instead to do what MUST be done, to stop the pain. Killing is NOT the objective of the act, it is a “foreseen, but unintended byproduct”.

So now you’re back to the position: it’s wrong to kill someone even if they’re suffering horribly. You should just want to relieve their pain.

That, Vera, is a very fine (and moral) position to take.

[SIGN]We are agreed that it is wrong to intend to kill the patient.[/SIGN]

You have taken the Catholic position here.

'nuff said.

 

[PRmerger]

If there are further exceptions, they must be included in the conditional statement, until you reach the “IF and ONLY IF X, Y, Z and… THEN A is true”.

Then, dearest Vera, you are an absolutist.

(Which, of course, I knew all along. I was just using some Socratic technique to tease that admission from you.)

That is why I avoid the usage of these labels.

No you don’t.

You use them all the time.

(See the examples I gave already of your use of “wicked” and “good”, etc etc etc)

You simply can’t avoid use of these labels if you are going to have any kind of dialogue that surpasses inane discussions about the weather or what type of ice cream you prefer.

 

[PRmerger]

Women are supposed to be more than “breeding sacks”,

Annnnd, here’s exhibit number 88789 demonstrating that you are an absolutist.

Women are “supposed” = an absolute way of viewing women.

You see, I operate under the view that people are (or should be) legally allowed to do whatever they wish to do with their own body, and their own life.

And exhibit 88790.

 

[PRmerger]

You should really investigate this question.

Also, people who declare themselves to not be absolutists should avoid use of the word “should” (as limned above) and “supposed” (as limned earlier).

 

[Bradski]

Clearly, you believe that there is an absolute and objective truth.

As you know, that is not the case. But if you insist there is, let me know if you can access it (and it might help if you tell me how you know you have accessed it).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Then, dearest Vera, you are an absolutist.

I think I wasted enough time on you. All I can hope for is that someone on your side will explain to you the difference between the two statements:

1. "A" is true under any and all circumstances - an “absolute” statement. and
2. "A" is true IF and ONLY IF “x” and “y” and “z”… etc. are true - which is a “relative” or “conditional” statement.

Sad, but one must accept that there are people who are beyond redemption. Good bye.

 

[PRmerger]

As you know, that is not the case.

Is this a true or false statement, Bradski?

Or is it merely subjective?

If it’s subjective, then why are you trying to get me to come to your understanding?

Would you try to get me to have the same preference for how to cook turnips that you do?

Yeah…I didn’t think so.

 

[goout]

As you know, that is not the case. But if you insist there is, let me know if you can access it (and it might help if you tell me how you know you have accessed it).

It is a silly assertion that because an atheist doesn’t subscribe to the USCCB newsletter he doesn’t hold to absolute truths. The assertion that there is no absolute truth is itself, an assertion of absolute truth.
But it is good that on this forum, which is an apostolate of the Catholic Church, we have the opportunity to search together and propose our absolute truths. It is good that you see a point in searching together with us.

The point has been demonstrated that atheists believe in absolute truth, the problem is the truth that atheists propose is not true. It is not absolute or objective, it is personal, arbitrary, subjective.

 

[inocente]

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?

Sorry, missed this post yesterday.

Might-makes-right refers to the guy with the biggest gun forcing others to comply. You could always move to North Korea to see might-makes-right in action.

I say that if your views on that question make good sense, then others will come to the same conclusion as you. Whereas if you’re frightened they won’t, if you don’t have confidence in your view, then you ought to listen to others before making up your mind.

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.

That’s one reason why freedom is superior to right-makes-right, because with freedom we all get to decide rather than one dictator.

Your argument appears to be that if I agree with you about what is good, then you’ll say my conscience is well-formed. So, to return the favor, if you agree with me about what is good, then I’ll say your conscience is well-formed.

Yes, that seems very fair.

 

[PRmerger]

I think I wasted enough time on you.

But of course this was forthcoming.

One needn’t seek succor in a fortune teller to predict this was going to happen.

Take home message, Vera: if your views cannot stand up to scrutiny, then you may be succumbing to a blind faith.

And…if you believe something blindly, you’re likely to believe some really bizarre things.

Just sayin’…

 

[goout]

Precisely why the onus is on you to show that it isn’t pointless. By, I dunno, responding to the points I brought up?

Ah,I see.
Christians, because they propose a standard, need to put up the good(s), so it can be shot down.
Atheists, on the other hand, can dance. And, they can dance some more, and shoot down religion. Cause…that’s all they have… is to shoot at religion.

A-theism.
We’d like to know that a-theism has a point Brad. Please show us the compendium of firm and enduring atheistic moral teaching so we can critically discuss.

We’ll wait…
(I’d like to go to the atheist forum and gain thousands of posts about why atheism is pointless and how my questions are not addressed etc…)