Is the latest morality the best?

[goout]

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’…

Like believing that pets and human beings have the same intrinsic value as living creatures.

 

[Bradski]

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.

Incorrect.

I am not stating it as an absolute truth. I am stating it as a personal opinion which I believe to be true.

Now if you have access to Absolute Truth in any regard that you KNOW is true (as opposed to personal opinion), then let me know.

And you can answer the problem as to why everything you believe to be morally correct is also an Absolute Truth. If not, then there must be something you believe to be true which is NOT an absolute truth.

It’s an either/or situation you have placed yourself in. Make the call. Which is it?

 

[goout]

Incorrect.

I am not stating it as an absolute truth. I am stating it as a personal opinion which I believe to be true.

Now if you have access to Absolute Truth in any regard that you KNOW is true (as opposed to personal opinion), then let me know.

And you can answer the problem as to why everything you believe to be morally correct is also an Absolute Truth. If not, then there must be something you believe to be true which is NOT an absolute truth.

It’s an either/or situation you have placed yourself in. Make the call. Which is it?

So let me see if I have this straight.
After 4500 posts you are still confused about Catholic morality?
Or are we just arguing here?

You really don’t know about Catholic morality? That stretches the bounds of credulity.
Where’s the atheist place I can go to and do this? Seems like a fun sport.

 

[inocente]

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.

Not sure any of that means morality is less good rather than better today though.

 

[Bradski]

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.

Damn right that if you propose a standard you have to back it up. And you propose Absolute Truth.

So where is it? Who can access it? How can we trust someone who says that they can access it? How do we know it’s not personal opinion?

None of this is forthcoming. It never is. It never has been. It never will be. You are making statements that you do not back up.

And I am not here as a representive of atheist views, determined to shoot down religion. I am here to espouse my own personal views on matters such as morality and question the views of those who differ.

You certainly differ because you say that you have access to something that I don’t. Well, at least I assume that is what you are saying, because your commitment to making a commitment in this regard is sorely lacking.

 

[goout]

Not sure any of that means morality is less good rather than better today though.

Morality today is as good as the good it is sourced from.
If the good proposed is arbitrary and whimsical and subject to swaying popular might, then the morality is arbitrary and whimsical. Decisions will be poorly made due to a shaky foundation.

For instance, on another thread a poster equates the dignity and value of human life to that of pets.
Based on that, he is able to make the argument that what is good for pets (termination of suffering) is good in spades for human beings.
His “morality” is perverted, because it’s source and foundation:
“termination of suffering”
is not an absolute good.
Termination of suffering is a good, not an absolute good. “Termination of suffering” is subject to the dignity of human life made in the image of God.
So we can work for the elimination of suffering, but we can’t kill a person to end suffering, or condone a person taking his own life to end suffering.
His life as a human being is a higher value.

The foundation of morality is unchanging. The latest morality is good to the degree it is well founded.

 

[Bradski]

After 4500 posts you are still confused about Catholic morality?

Your personal views diiffer from other Catholics. I know exactly what some aspects of Catholocism dictate. And I mean ‘dictate’. But that is not what we are talking about.

Unless it is your proposal that all aspects of Catholocism are the Absolute Truth. In which case I will be suitably amazed that you personally agree with every aspect of it.

Am I supposed to believe that? Am I supposed to believe that everything that you personally
believe to be Absolute Truth also happens to coincide exactly with what the Catholic church teaches?

 

[truetofaith]

You guys just like to have long-winded arguments…I’m out!

 

[inocente]

Morality today is as good as the good it is sourced from.
If the good proposed is arbitrary and whimsical and subject to swaying popular might, then the morality is arbitrary and whimsical. Decisions will be poorly made due to a shaky foundation.

For instance, on another thread a poster equates the dignity and value of human life to that of pets.
Based on that, he is able to make the argument that what is good for pets (termination of suffering) is good in spades for human beings.
His “morality” is perverted, because it’s source and foundation:
“termination of suffering”
is not an absolute good.
Termination of suffering is a good, not an absolute good. “Termination of suffering” is subject to the dignity of human life made in the image of God.
So we can work for the elimination of suffering, but we can’t kill a person to end suffering, or condone a person taking his own life to end suffering.
His life as a human being is a higher value.

The foundation of morality is unchanging. The latest morality is good to the degree it is well founded.

In your opinion.

I’ve not seen the other thread but from what you say, the other person doesn’t share your opinion. Interesting thing about morality is everyone starts out thinking he’s absolutely right. But then you take an ethics class and realize others don’t always share your view of what is absolutely right. And sometimes they make really good arguments and may even change your mind.

So I wouldn’t worry when others disagree, it’s good because it lets you exercise your conscience. If you’re searching for objective moral rules, one is that people sometimes disagree, and another is that sometimes you’re wrong.

 

[goout]

In your opinion.

I’ve not seen the other thread but from what you say, the other person doesn’t share your opinion. Interesting thing about morality is everyone starts out thinking he’s absolutely right. But then you take an ethics class and realize others don’t always share your view of what is absolutely right. And sometimes they make really good arguments and may even change your mind.

So I wouldn’t worry when others disagree, it’s good because it lets you exercise your conscience. If you’re searching for objective moral rules, one is that people sometimes disagree, and another is that sometimes you’re wrong.

Assertion:
Disagreement is a reality of life, therefore no absolute truth exists. :dts:
Follow it does not, says Yoda.
That is just vacuous thinking.

It seems one thing you want to emphasize is morality is opinion-based.
That is not morality. That is a-moral, since morality is the evaluation of human acts. Evaluation is in reference to some standard. It is not the mere thinking about something and noting the disagreements and various opinions. At some point morality must get down to business in reference to an objective value.
(cue the redefinition of morality…)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Like believing that pets and human beings have the same intrinsic value as living creatures.

This is a misrepresentation of what I said. I guess I will need to repeat it. Humans deserve even MORE compassion than the pets. Which part of “more” don’t you understand? Or do you prefer to misrepresent what other people say? :tsktsk:

Of course there are lots of “absolute” expressions which are held to be true by atheists. Here is one: “the universe exists”. Or “one pound of iron weighs exactly the same as one pound of feathers”. Or “one mile is longer than one kilometer”… or infinitely many more. Expressions about facts are true or false. Expressions about opinions are a different matter. Is a weight of 200 pounds “heavy”? Or “light”? It is a subjective assessment.

However, atheists do not accept that there are “absolute” (unqualified) moral truths. It is strange that you disagree, because even the Catholic teaching does NOT hold that “killing” is inherently wrong or “immoral”. There are exceptions, and killing is very serious - arguably the most serious matter. And then you assert that sex without the “openness” to procreation is “intrinsically” wrong. To call an act of pure love to be immoral? This is such a serious inconsistency that boggles the mind.

Of course, well-qualified statements, like “torturing someone for fun” would be accepted by almost everyone as universally correct. There would still be dissenters, for example psychopaths.

The basic problem is that “morality” is simply the adherence to some ethical system, and there are many different ethical systems.

I would suggest that you guys learn the different meanings of “absolute” and “relative”, and also “objective” and “subjective”. With the level of confusion you exhibit, it is fruitless to try to have an intelligent conversation.

 

[edwest2]

Not sure any of that means morality is less good rather than better today though.

Morality is a lot worse today due to years of gradually desensitizing the average person, primarily through the media.

Ed

 

[goout]

This is a misrepresentation of what I said. I guess I will need to repeat it. Humans deserve even MORE compassion than the pets. Which part of “more” don’t you understand? Or do you prefer to misrepresent what other people say? :tsktsk:

Let’s not shrink from your assertion.
You compared the value of pets to the value of humans.

You asserted that because it is humane to kill pets to alleviate suffering, it is more ok to kill humans to alleviate suffering. You are the one who based your evaluation on that applied to pets. No one else made this comparison, you made it.

So while you are now backing away from that somewhat (a good thing) your original assertion stands as equating the value of humans and pets. Or at least, applying the moral principles appropriate for pets to human beings.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Damn right that if you propose a standard you have to back it up. And you propose Absolute Truth.

So where is it? Who can access it? How can we trust someone who says that they can access it? How do we know it’s not personal opinion?

None of this is forthcoming. It never is. It never has been. It never will be. You are making statements that you do not back up.

The back-up was offered to you earlier and you ignored it. Too bad.

The back up is the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But these back-ups are useless to an atheist. So why do you keep asking ad nauseam for the back-up when you know what the back-up is and have no intention of examining it, never mind believing it?

You have no faith, and your rejection of faith is an absolute without any back-up whatever but your own carping disbelief.

So why not stop carping about other people’s absolutes?

 

[inocente]

Assertion:
Disagreement is a reality of life, therefore no absolute truth exists. :dts:
Follow it does not, says Yoda.
That is just vacuous thinking.

It seems one thing you want to emphasize is morality is opinion-based.
That is not morality. That is a-moral, since morality is the evaluation of human acts. Evaluation is in reference to some standard. It is not the mere thinking about something and noting the disagreements and various opinions. At some point morality must get down to business in reference to an objective value.
(cue the redefinition of morality…)

Your “vacuous thinking” remark gives the impression you’re an adolescent male who knows it all. Then you try to impose your definition on me with the fallacy that if I disagree, I’m somehow redefining morality. I mean, come on, be serious.

But even if I accept your definition, it doesn’t do much work, as most people, probably including you, vary their standards according to circumstances. Duty ethics involves compliance with rules, virtue ethics concern character, utilitarian standards seek to maximize well-being, etc., etc. To get you started, have a look at this article - plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

 

[goout]

Your “vacuous thinking” remark gives the impression you’re an adolescent male who knows it all. Then you try to impose your definition on me with the fallacy that if I disagree, I’m somehow redefining morality. I mean, come on, be serious.

Actually, I’m not trying to impose anything.

I am rather proposing.
The proposition is that morality is not mine, or yours.

So you are misunderstanding morality.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Actually, I’m not trying to impose anything.

I am rather proposing.
The proposition is that morality is not mine, or yours.

Exactly, the morality is Christ’s.

Is Christ’s morality mandatory, or is it to be rejected because it is not objective?

 

[inocente]

Actually, I’m not trying to impose anything.

I am rather proposing.
The proposition is that morality is not mine, or yours.

So you are misunderstanding morality.

You say you’re not trying to impose and then impose by saying I’m misunderstanding.

Your proposition is called duty ethics. Jesus isn’t a fan of duty ethics by itself, as it can lead to blindly following rules. See Matt 23.

 

[inocente]

You say you’re not trying to impose and then impose by saying I’m misunderstanding.

Your proposition is called duty ethics. Jesus isn’t a fan of duty ethics by itself, as it can lead to blindly following rules. See Matt 23.

 

[edwest2]

The back-up was offered to you earlier and you ignored it. Too bad.

The back up is the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But these back-ups are useless to an atheist. So why do you keep asking ad nauseam for the back-up when you know what the back-up is and have no intention of examining it, never mind believing it?

You have no faith, and your rejection of faith is an absolute without any back-up whatever but your own carping disbelief.

So why not stop carping about other people’s absolutes?

Well said.

Ed