moral absolutism

  • Thread starter Thread starter libre
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moral relativism is altogether too easy a moral system. People don’t have to learn morals. All they have to do is declare what they consider to be good and evil. Case closed. You’ve heard of the judge who gave thirty days in jail to a teacher who repeatedly raped a fourteen year old student (who subsequently committed suicide). His reason? She was co-responsible for luring him into sex. Was that a relatively right sentence, or an objectively wrong one? :rolleyes:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
**Strawberry

Morals are not absolute according to your defense of this action.**

Nature and nature’s God endowed human being with the capacity to reproduce at an early age. When life is short, it made sense to marry earlier than we do today. That has nothing to do with morals so much as with nature’s plan.

We do not encourage early marriage today because early deaths are not so common and the rate of psychological maturation and education is much slower and more complex than it was thousands of years ago. Again, nothing to do with morality.
Click to expand...
Really?

So their bodies were devloped to handle childbirth? And they were equipped to handle taking care of a family at the early age of 12 or 13?

Looks like child abuse to me. And makes me wonder why all depections of Mary show a woman, not a young young child holding a baby.
 
40.png
StrawberryJam:
So their bodies were devloped to handle childbirth? And they were equipped to handle taking care of a family at the early age of 12 or 13?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the human body matured faster as well.
40.png
StrawberryJam:
Morals are not absolute according to your defense of this action.
Click to expand...
Why not?
40.png
Me:
IMO, people had a lot more virtue.
Click to expand...
I realize now that this may seem spontaneous and ungrounded. Perhaps I should elaborate.
Contrary to the evolutionistic picture of prehistoric life, at the beginning of human existence, people were not savage and brute. The concept of sin hadn’t been introduced to people yet, so there wasn’t any of it. After the first sin, it would have been the first and (so far as had been seen yet) only sin. Thus, people would have thought of even the smallest sin as the inexpressibly horrendous act that it is, as opposed to present day, where sin is so commonplace that it’s not even considered a big deal. I infer therefore than sin was probably less abundant.
 
SentinelofTruth said:
Perhaps the human body matured faster as well.

Why not?

I realize now that this may seem spontaneous and ungrounded. Perhaps I should elaborate.
Contrary to the evolutionistic picture of prehistoric life, at the beginning of human existence, people were not savage and brute. The concept of sin hadn’t been introduced to people yet, so there wasn’t any of it. After the first sin, it would have been the first and (so far as had been seen yet) only sin. Thus, people would have thought of even the smallest sin as the inexpressibly horrendous act that it is, as opposed to present day, where sin is so commonplace that it’s not even considered a big deal. I infer therefore than sin was probably less abundant.
Click to expand...
It is not savage and brute to impregnate a 12 year old? Who is always depicted in art as a woman. Not a young, young girl.
Or do you need faith and belief to come to a point to justify that?

Sin was less abundant is well-------------

Not a great argument but if willing to trot it out I will trounce you.
 
SentinelofTruth said:
Perhaps the human body matured faster as well.

Why not?

I realize now that this may seem spontaneous and ungrounded. Perhaps I should elaborate.
Contrary to the evolutionistic picture of prehistoric life, at the beginning of human existence, people were not savage and brute. The concept of sin hadn’t been introduced to people yet, so there wasn’t any of it. After the first sin, it would have been the first and (so far as had been seen yet) only sin. Thus, people would have thought of even the smallest sin as the inexpressibly horrendous act that it is, as opposed to present day, where sin is so commonplace that it’s not even considered a big deal. I infer therefore than sin was probably less abundant.
Click to expand...
You do mean that at the beggining it was a literal Adam and literal Eve as dogma commands you.
 
People seem to misunderstand what morality is.

Moral- from mos, moris. It means pertaining to customs or way of life. Peoples customs and ways of life include things like the kind of food that they eat, the age at which they get married, how many hours a week they work, whether they exercise, or smoke cigarette. You don’t need to be an anthropologist to know that these things are relative. Hence, some degree of moral relativity ‘exists’ .Whether it ‘should’ or not is another matter.

I think moral absolutism is a flawed approach. A much better approach is Divine Command theory, favoured by Ockham, Al-Ghazali, etc.- God has given us laws in the OT and NT, and He has authorized the Catholic Church to interpret these.

Moral absolutism denies God freedom to change Laws. For example, if it was morally wrong (i.e. wrong with respect to custom or way of life) for the ancient Hebrews to eat pork, it must be absolutely wrong, and so wrong for us.

But it is not absolutely wrong- it is wrong because it was contrary to God’s Law, at the time. There are no absolutes- God is free to change Divine Law as He pleases.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Nature and nature’s God endowed human being with the capacity to reproduce at an early age. When life is short, it made sense to marry earlier than we do today. That has nothing to do with morals so much as with nature’s plan.

We do not encourage early marriage today because early deaths are not so common and the rate of psychological maturation and education is much slower and more complex than it was thousands of years ago. Again, nothing to do with morality.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is moral. It pertains to mores- customs and mode of life. You have elaborated a perfect example of ‘moral relativity’, where mores are determined by circumstances of history and culture.

What do you mean by ‘morality’ if not ‘that which pertains to mores’?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
libre

Peter Kreeft has written an interesting book: A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist

The main and first question to ask a moral relativist is:

“Would I be objectively wrong to punch you in the nose?” :D;)

That may help to begin and close your case in one sentence. 👍
Click to expand...
I would say, “No”, and punch him in the nose before he got the chance to do it.
 
**belorg

I would say, “No”, and punch him in the nose before he got the chance to do it.**

Now, now. You better flatten him unconscious or he may do you the same. 👍
 
**Yes, it is moral. It pertains to mores- customs and mode of life. You have elaborated a perfect example of ‘moral relativity’, where mores are determined by circumstances of history and culture.

What do you mean by ‘morality’ if not ‘that which pertains to mores’? **

The mores of a society include its habits and customs pertaining to its survival, as well as its morals. If you are going to say it’s immoral for fertile fourteen-year-olds to marry (nature gave them fertility at that age for a purpose, you know), you mights as well say its immoral for infertile (nature denied them that purpose) ninety-year-olds to marry.

Don’t ever call me a relativist again or I’ll punch you in the nose! :D;)
 
40.png
StrawberryJam:
Sin was less abundant is well-------------

Not a great argument but if willing to trot it out I will trounce you.
Click to expand...
You’re taking what I said out of context just to make it sound ungrounded and irrelevant. This was never said this was directly related to marriage age thing, the point was that people would probably have matured faster. Also, this wasn’t the only reason I gave for thinking that (see the post where I made this assertion). BTW, you can use the quote feature, you know. You don’t have to use that odd little line of dashes.
40.png
StrawberryJam:
You do mean that at the beggining it was a literal Adam and literal Eve as dogma commands you.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. What of it?
40.png
Qoeleth:
People seem to misunderstand what morality is.

Moral- from mos, moris. It means pertaining to customs or way of life. Peoples customs and ways of life include things like the kind of food that they eat, the age at which they get married, how many hours a week they work, whether they exercise, or smoke cigarette. You don’t need to be an anthropologist to know that these things are relative. Hence, some degree of moral relativity ‘exists’ .Whether it ‘should’ or not is another matter.

I think moral absolutism is a flawed approach. A much better approach is Divine Command theory, favoured by Ockham, Al-Ghazali, etc.- God has given us laws in the OT and NT, and He has authorized the Catholic Church to interpret these.

Moral absolutism denies God freedom to change Laws. For example, if it was morally wrong (i.e. wrong with respect to custom or way of life) for the ancient Hebrews to eat pork, it must be absolutely wrong, and so wrong for us.

But it is not absolutely wrong- it is wrong because it was contrary to God’s Law, at the time. There are no absolutes- God is free to change Divine Law as He pleases.
Click to expand...
Just because the word morality comes from a latin word that means customs doesn’t mean our word means customs too. KIM (keep in mind) the meaning of a word is determined by what people use it to mean. Thus, if many people think that morality means an objective standard, then it does.
 
**Qouleth

There are no absolutes- God is free to change Divine Law as He pleases. **

Since God is Love, according to St. John, is God free to command us to hate one another? :confused:
 
Charlemange II:
Since God is Love, according to St. John, is God free to command us to hate one another? :confused:
Click to expand...
Technically, yes, because he has free will. But if you mean can he change the moral law, no.
 
People always seem to know when something is wrong when the wrong is done to them.😉
 
Charlemagne_II said:
**Qouleth

There are no absolutes- God is free to change Divine Law as He pleases. **

Since God is Love, according to St. John, is God free to command us to hate one another? :confused:
Click to expand...
No, God cannot contradict Himself. He also can’t lift a rock that weighs more than He can lift. Get my drift?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top