G
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
I did. You either missed the logic or cannot see it. I say these rights are de facto, i.e. natural. You say in your post these rights can only be de jure (“Different societies provide a different set of ‘rights’”) i.e. state authorized.
Either way, to the point of my earlier post, if one cannot agree with another on the existence of natural human rights, no further productive debate on morality can follow.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
To say that there are “natural rights de facto” needs substantiation. Just saying it does not make so. Also, I asked what those “natural rights” might be. And who will enforce those rights? I am not about to dismiss what you said “out of hand”. If you provide some rational argument for your starting point, I will be willing to entertain it.
There is a need for some mutual starting point, that is true.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Read the posts (again?). Nothing was claimed “out-of-hand.” However, I will allow you to disagree with the argument for natural human rights.
Have a good day.
A
Aloysium
Guest
This question contains two others:
What is the latest morality? People seem to be focussed on some form of progressive secular humanism, which I would argue is not generally held by the majority of human beings alive today, although promulgated by consumerist media along with an I’m-alright-Jack attitude towards human interaction. It is the times that have changed with the coming of a new age, defined by the electronic medium by which we come to know about and act in the world. As always, the technology we use determines how and what we perceive, how we understand the world and our part in it and what we do to the world, each other, and to we ourselves. Human nature has responded, but as we once had Rome and the Zealots, we now have consumerists and terrorist, at odds with each other while needing the other to define themselves. Persons of course is far more complex a subject than the societal currents through which we try to steer.
The second question has to do with how one determines that one morality is better than another. If we ask any person, chances are that their’s will be stated to be the best given that it is the guiding light to where they want their lives to lead. There have been some huge improvements within society, but much disparity and many drawbacks. This last century has seen some of the worst butchery the world has witnessed, and of previously unimagined proportions. Beyond the surface is the person who must choose between this world of illusion, transience and self-interest and the eternal Ground of creation - Love.
Nothing has changed, but we do live in tumultuous times. As the forces that govern this world strain to maintain their influence, there is a groaning that comes with the birth of a new mankind, joined in love, the kingdom of God alive, we pray, in each and every heart.
What is the latest morality? People seem to be focussed on some form of progressive secular humanism, which I would argue is not generally held by the majority of human beings alive today, although promulgated by consumerist media along with an I’m-alright-Jack attitude towards human interaction. It is the times that have changed with the coming of a new age, defined by the electronic medium by which we come to know about and act in the world. As always, the technology we use determines how and what we perceive, how we understand the world and our part in it and what we do to the world, each other, and to we ourselves. Human nature has responded, but as we once had Rome and the Zealots, we now have consumerists and terrorist, at odds with each other while needing the other to define themselves. Persons of course is far more complex a subject than the societal currents through which we try to steer.
The second question has to do with how one determines that one morality is better than another. If we ask any person, chances are that their’s will be stated to be the best given that it is the guiding light to where they want their lives to lead. There have been some huge improvements within society, but much disparity and many drawbacks. This last century has seen some of the worst butchery the world has witnessed, and of previously unimagined proportions. Beyond the surface is the person who must choose between this world of illusion, transience and self-interest and the eternal Ground of creation - Love.
Nothing has changed, but we do live in tumultuous times. As the forces that govern this world strain to maintain their influence, there is a groaning that comes with the birth of a new mankind, joined in love, the kingdom of God alive, we pray, in each and every heart.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
It seems too obvious to have to mention. I suppose that one cannot expect this to be self evident to those who see only people thinking and acting. If one doesn’t know God, all there is to Christianity are fanciful stories and rules by which someone wants you to live by. Yet God has revealed Himself and His purpose sufficiently to allow all persons to come to Him. He awaits all of us. It may be difficult to let go, but someone far greater is there to catch us.
P
PRmerger
Guest
sigh.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.
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?
No, Vera.
Just because there are Moral Absolutes and Objective Morality doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING is morally absolute and objectively moral.
So vis a vis the conversation with Bradski: although he never acknowledges the moral absolutes I pose, we both know that that he believes that they exist. To wit: it is never permissible to kill a man just because you want to have sex with his wife. It is never permissible to drag around your wife by her hair because she burned your toast.
And yet, there are questions–valid questions–about, say, whether it would be right to lie to Planned Parenthood about being pregnant in order to gather information about their reprehensible practices.
See?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I do hope you see the amusing irony here, BTW.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.
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?
You seem to have unwittingly advocated for Objective Truth here.
Yes?
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
The joke is on you.I do hope you see the amusing irony here, BTW.
There is no need to capitalize the words “objective truth”. No one denies that there are infinitely many “true” statements out there… most of which are “objectively true”.
So far you proved that you don’t understand the difference between “absolute” and “relative”. Now you proved that you don’t get the difference between “objective” and “subjective”. What else is there that you cannot comprehend?
P
PRmerger
Guest
QED, Vera. QED.
You may want to retract your statement that you’re not an absolutist.
You are.
And that’s why you’re here. You believe your arguments are true.
Otherwise, why don’t you go to a forum that discusses whether turnips are better mashed or fried.
(No one does that, of course, because those are matters of taste with no objective truth. But when one comes to a forum to discuss morality, it’s because there’s the unstated but obviously true understanding: there is objective truth.)
EDIT: No one discusses which way to eat turnips is better…for 28 pages.
Nor does he argue that his way (mashed) is the correct way.
It’s all a matter of preference…
unless…
there’s…
wait for it…
wait for it…
Objective Truth.
A
Aloysium
Guest
“Objective Truth” is capitalized because “it” is the Triune Godhead - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is at the same time: the Giver of life, Beauty and Goodness - Love.
The argument would be that morality is more than a set of rules. If you think about it, does it make sense that there would be infinitely many true statements on their own out there? They point to one Truth, that can be known in our particular fashion depending on where and when we are, the circumstances of our individual lives.
Absolute, relative, subjective and objective are terms that ultimately have to do with the reality of our relational nature. There is nothing in our existence which is not related to something greater. Our perceptions, thoughts, feelings, actions, all have to do with our being self-other. This is an image of the perfect Self-Other, who is God, who is Love. And this is why that when we love, we get closer to Him. Our existence, which a person may feel is their own is actually the connection to God since we do not bring ourselves into existence. Again, the more we love, the more our relationship with God becomes perfected, and we come to know Him ever more fully.
Most morality in this world is about this world. It has to do with people getting along, and/or achieving some sort of happiness and harmony. The sad reality is that we are lost in illusion, following transient goods that can never be truly ours. It is all about making this world into a heaven. The communist experiment to create a society where each of us gives from our capacity to all based on our need should have worked if this were possible. Like the Tower of Babel, it failed miserably. Goodness comes from God. He who is Love itself has to be primary. Religions are about transcendence, communing with Him. From there, we are given everything we need.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
This is a very nice “witnessing” - no doubt about it. But here we are on a philosophy sub-forum (NOT the apologetics forum), where “truth” and “objective” have a very well defined meaning. Your way of defining “objective truth” would exclude all the non-Christians from being able to participate. That is fine, just let’s make it clear: “non-Christians” are not welcome, because they are unable / unwilling to subscribe to OUR definition of basic concepts. And without a common understanding of basic words no conversation can take place.
Actually, ALL morality is about interpersonal relations. What happens in THIS world is NOT irrelevant. But as long as we are unable to carve out a common starting platform, we shall not be able to conduct a rational conversation.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It really, really SOUNDS as if you believe what we Catholics here have been saying all along: there is Objective Truth.
You’re arguing for it right now.
G
goout
Guest
Illustrating the absurdity of the relativist position.
It really, really SOUNDS as if you believe what we Catholics here have been saying all along: there is Objective Truth.
You’re arguing for it right now.
If there is no objective end in sight, why are we even discussing it?
Taking a position is…taking a position.
If it’s all relative and nicely secular humanist, there’s a bar stool waiting for me and lot’s of good sports to watch. (speaking of mass opiates)
C
carefullytread
Guest
I think you’ve just pointed out why it is very dangerous to engage in these sorts of arguments on the internet.Illustrating the absurdity of the relativist position.
If there is no objective end in sight, why are we even discussing it?
Taking a position is…taking a position.
If it’s all relative and nicely secular humanist, there’s a bar stool waiting for me and lot’s of good sports to watch. (speaking of mass opiates)
Precisely because someone who really understands the relativist position wouldn’t be arguing with you on the internet, you will necessarily only encounter a relativist who doesn’t understand relativism! That’s a great way to ensure that you can convince yourself there’s nothing interesting there without ever seeing the arguments.
I especially think something relevant here are Kegan’s stages of development (here’s a lay person introduction). The problem with relativism is that it’s the resolution to the problem of developing past the institutional phase. So unless someone reaches the inter-individual stage of development, you can’t really even begin to see why it’s a sensible way to view the world.
That’s not to say someone who develops to the inter-individual stage isn’t going to be a Christian (that’s a total misreading), but you aren’t really a relativist unless you get there. Most ‘relativists’ are really back down the ‘institutional’ or lower stage of development. And if you’re arguing on the internet, they definitely are!
So don’t miss the forest for the trees. I would really like to understand relativism, but I know you can’t do it without doing serious personal development. If you stop along the way and congratulate yourself for defeating someone who isn’t a relativist, you’ve failed yourself!
G
goout
Guest
This is what I mean by relativism:
Subjecting to one’s self (your own experiences, emotions, opinions) things that are not subject to one’s self.
A crude analogy is this:
I don’t see the sun, therefore it doesn’t exist.
I wasn’t on the moon landing trip, therefore it didn’t happen.
Also:
I don’t feel like feeding my starving neighbor, therefore I should not.
These points of view relativize “other” and subject them to I.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
I am glad to see this post, because it points out perfectly what relativism is NOT.
First, no one argues “relativism” in general. To say that “everything is relative” would be a logical fallacy. Since this whole thread is about morality, it should be pretty obvious that relativism here refers to moral relativism - which simply means that all the different aspects of an action need to be taken into consideration - in other words, ethics is situational. Catholicism implicitly accepts this when it admits that killing is NOT always immoral, there are exceptions (self-defense, etc…).
Moral absolutism would be to declare that a certain act is always, under any and all circumstances is immoral.
G
goout
Guest
You mean like this?:
Sounds absolute to me.
The relativist argument is repeatedly made by you and others here. Perhpas you don’t realize it. Morality is subject to the latest consensus, opinion, emotions
eek, etc…In fact you yourself illustrated the tragic end of relativism when you compared the value of human life to that of pets. Your morality is unhinged from the objective and drowned in the relative.
Contrast and compare that subjective viewpoint with Catholic morality.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I would disagree that “‘truth’ and ‘objective’ have a very well defined meaning”. Quite the opposite, these terms are used in very different ways and debated. I do believe from your feed back that you did understand what my words were getting at. I seems to me that you do not agree to the reality to which, I say, they point.
What I am asserting is that the ultimate truth is God, and that He is other to us: Objective Truth.
The truth is also that He is Love, not the emotion but a total giving to the other that brings union - the reality of the Trinity. Another truth is that consciously or unconsciously, we are on a journey in life, towards or away from love. That is where morality comes into play. Eastern religions call it Dharma, the cosmic order, part of which includes mankind’s spiritual evolution leading towards transcendence of what is understood to be the cycle of death and rebirth.
I find no difficulty in conversations with Hindu’s and Buddhists, and most times, rather than devolving into an argument, it can be spiritually enlightening. This is because there is respect for the other person’s view and an attempt to understand one another. It is possible to communicate from different perspectives. No one is excluded other than those who wish to exclude themselves by not wanting to listen. It makes no sense that someone would come to a Catholic site unprepared to try to grasp how different Catholics interpret their religion. It is an opportunity to listen and learn.
Let me address the points you make, the first being that all morality is about interpersonal relations. Clearly, it is about relationships; how to be in right relation to what is other. We have relationships with not only people, but the world of matter and other beings: bacteria, plants, animals. We can form relationships with disowned or projected parts of ourselves, trying to reintegrate who we are. The basic, essential relationship is with the Ground of our being. Whether one is a materialist, pantheist, deist or theist, the relationship with reality that reflects the particular world view impacts on the view of oneself and on every relationship. I am asking you to consider is that the Truth, and you might agree, is more than some blind, purely material being. It is relational, and all creation reflects this nature, even simple matter. All morality can be said to be interpersonal, but I would add, with the proviso that the fundamental Persons with whom we relate exist as the one Triune Godhead.
Most definitely, what happens in this life is not irrelevant. We have one shot at this; what we do, we do for all eternity. Some believe that this life is not remembered, since the world does not remember. However, what is at the Centre of every moment, knows every moment. This being here now is connected in eternity to all moments that exist in their space and time. Surrounded by oblivion in time, the events which fill this moment, exist. The Ground of that existence, that makes the awareness happen, is ever awake, knowing all. What we do with our time in this transient world to be swallowed into nothingness is definitely of importance as we determine who we are for all eternity. And, it has also been revealed that our being does not stop with death.
What is meaningless, is the quest for power, honour, pleasure and things. Where we find our purpose is in what exists beyond the transient and illusory. We give ourselves to this life, passing what has been given to us, onto others, honouring and following the will of our Creator. When God is held to be primary, and some know Him through relationships other than Christianity, good things follow, doing His will. All human attempts to make this world, heaven, without God, will fail. Desiring to be gods, without God, we have created Aleppo. Through the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we will be gods, at one with Love. Without a common starting platform rooted in the reality of God, all this is simply noise, the incomprehensibility that follows the construction of yet another, this time moral, Tower of Babel.
- Status