Moral Absolutism

  • Thread starter Thread starter FuzzyBunny116
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
I did not tell you what you believe (interesting huh).
You have been telling me all along that I cannot believe in moral absolutes, simply because you cannot imagine any other than your own, which you yourself chose freely and could choose to abandon at any time; and you say now that I must be lying to everybody to gain trust I would not otherwise have.

I can think of no better poster child for ‘invincible ignorance’, although not exactly in the manner the Church speaks of it. You are contributing nothing, and making the other Catholics who are attempting to seriously discuss absolutism look bad by association.
Interesting no? to have a discussion on moral absolutes the base for these absolutes must be dismissed. Why is that the case?
 
why have you come to believe there can be no source of moral objectivity other than god? how does god ground objective morality?
Objective Moral is probably an oxymoron, much like proof of faith. This is why the suggested moral bases always fail under scrutiny.
what, precisely, is wrong with “human nature”?
It contains sin (right?), so if man makes his own morals these morals would probably be sin contaminated.
not sure i understand your last question - why would a morality based on every human being’s mutual humanity commit me to doing whatever you - an individual human being - wanted me to do? that makes as much sense to me as supposing that the rationality that is the ground of our mutual human reason, would commit me to believing anything you told me…
Let’s try this; suppose you and I try to use our nature to create a moral system. I tell you I (want, feel, think) sex should be absent in this base. You may not agree with that suggestion, so what happens? We negotiate right, so our morals are strictly based on what I feel is correct minus my inability to negotiate. And thus the problem it is what I feel, I believe, I think, I negotiate, it is all about me.

Think about the decadent times in history, man had increased civiI freedom and license for most actions. So why did man reverse the trend and install stricter civil laws? I think it was done to achieve the calling of man, which I believe comes from God.
 
Objective Moral is probably an oxymoron, much like proof of faith. This is why the suggested moral bases always fail under scrutiny. It contains sin (right?), so if man makes his own morals these morals would probably be sin contaminated. Let’s try this; suppose you and I try to use our nature to create a moral system. I tell you I (want, feel, think) sex should be absent in this base. You may not agree with that suggestion, so what happens? We negotiate right, so our morals are strictly based on what I feel is correct minus my inability to negotiate. And thus the problem it is what I feel, I believe, I think, I negotiate, it is all about me.

Think about the decadent times in history, man had increased civiI freedom and license for most actions. So why did man reverse the trend and install stricter civil laws? I think it was done to achieve the calling of man, which I believe comes from God.
but having a morality grounded in human nature doesn’t mean that humans “make” their own morality - they discover it in the same way that they discover the logical laws that apply to their thinking in virtue of their being human…
 
if you spent less time assuming that i don’t know much about moral philosophy, and more time actually looking at my question, you might have had a better chance of answering it…

what you said originally was: “Morals can be objectified in the normative sense but not in the metaethical sense”.

this is not synonymous with a simple statement of the differences between normative ethics and metaethics - you are making a claim that appears to be something like “one can have objective morality as a matter of normative fact, but not as a matter of metaethical fact”. i say “something like”, because i don’t know what you mean. and i still don’t.

can you please provide what you understand to be the definition of “naturalism”, and let me know if it’s in any way related to “moral/ethical naturalism”.

you’re all over the map here…what has this got to do with anything i said?

i am a proponent of the (metaethical) position that morality is grounded in (NOT “reducible to”) human nature, which is NOT the same thing as “naturalism” of any kind.
To clarify: Moral can’t be objective in Natrualism. How do you, using the scientific method, study a metaphysical objective moral standard? If it were possible this debate wouldn’t be happening.

Naturalism: materialism + animal behaviorism. For Naturalism, There is no such thing as an metaphyscial objective morality in Nature. Since evil couldn’t be objectively real then neither would be human rights.

Some animals (lions for example) will genocide another’s offspring. In the case of lions are they committing an evil by their behavior? No. In Naturalism humans are simply one more animal specie. If humans genocide another culture was an objective evil committed? No, not if Naturalism is true. To the culture committing the genocide they are committing a good but to the culture being genocided it is evil. Who’s right? They both are…Why? because that is human nature and also moral relativism.

You don’t get to change definitions for ever one else.
 
well, i know of some moral naturalists who would disagree with you.
Jeff Corwin, who does the animal planet is a biologist and calls himself a naturalists. When I say naturalists I’m uning it in the metaphyscial sense of Naturalism. I dont’ think you understand the difference in the metaphysical or normative sense.
but that is as may be - i am in fact an ethical non-naturalist (though not a non-cognitivist), so i’m not sure why you’re tarring me with this particular brush.
i am a catholic who believes that people ought to do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do; i make no judgments about who is in fact more or less moral than anyone else - i restrict my observations to the relative nature of different motivations for action.

i happen also to believe that it is entirely consistent to believe in an objective and absolute morality at the same time as one believes that god does not exist, since i believe that god is not the source of morality
Sorry, as a catholic you don’t get to make up Catholcism. Let’s see: you just denied papal infalibility when speaking on morals since the source of that infalibility comes to the seat of Saint Peter by way of the Holy Spirit.
 
why have you come to believe there can be no source of moral objectivity other than god? how does god ground objective morality?

what, precisely, is wrong with “human nature”?

not sure i understand your last question - why would a morality based on every human being’s mutual humanity commit me to doing whatever you - an individual human being - wanted me to do? that makes as much sense to me as supposing that the rationality that is the ground of our mutual human reason, would commit me to believing anything you told me…
What do you mean by human nature? Do you mean human nature as being made in the image of God. Or human nature as being another specie of animal on this planet?

For naturalism: human nature is WWII Japanese soilder’s tossing live Chinese babies into the air while his buddy bayonetted them on the way down. That was the objective fact. But what was the naturalistic moral fact? Was a naturalistic objective evil committed? Nope, not by these soilders’ human nature…they were simply having fun. When you say you think the source of objective morals are human nature you in effect are saying humans have rights by virtue of being human. That is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.
 
Objective Moral is probably an oxymoron, much like proof of faith. This is why the suggested moral bases always fail under scrutiny. It contains sin (right?), so if man makes his own morals these morals would probably be sin contaminated. Let’s try this; suppose you and I try to use our nature to create a moral system. I tell you I (want, feel, think) sex should be absent in this base. You may not agree with that suggestion, so what happens? We negotiate right, so our morals are strictly based on what I feel is correct minus my inability to negotiate. And thus the problem it is what I feel, I believe, I think, I negotiate, it is all about me.

Think about the decadent times in history, man had increased civiI freedom and license for most actions. So why did man reverse the trend and install stricter civil laws? I think it was done to achieve the calling of man, which I believe comes from God.
Objective morality is not an oxymoron anymore than an objective God would be. Only in materialism are objects restricted to the physical. An objective morality (if true) is better thought of as a quality dictated by the situation…“is it always wrong to lie?” Depends upon the situation.

What’s the difference between objective morality (situational ethics) and moral relativism? For situational ethics the facts, independent of human emotional subjectivity, dictate the right thing to do. Moral relativism holds that there is no such thing as situtational ethics, that morality is only human subjective emotionalism. To use an analogy: you might subjectively like one flavor of ice crean while somebody else hates that flavor. Who’s preference is the right one? neither’s is the right one.

Catholic Morality: Life in Christ Basically, Catholic morality is based upon love. To Catholicism God is Love, God is Truth and if there is such a God then it follows that moral truth is also God’s objective nature. This God doesn’t not create Himself or his own nature. In this religion humans are made in God’s image. Hence we share in His moral nature.

Notice: I did not word that in a way that this is what you personally must believe. I word it in a way that discribes morality within this faith. Your free to believe it or not.

Here’s a video on Moral Relaltivism. At about the end he mentions what morality can tell us about the nature of reality. In a different way he’s saying the same thing I am. If Naturalism (scientific naturalism if you prefer) is true then moral relativism is also true. Moral relativism is an all or nothing belief. If you reject any part of it you reject naturalism/materialism: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9219638402717265149
 
but having a morality grounded in human nature doesn’t mean that humans “make” their own morality - they discover it in the same way that they discover the logical laws that apply to their thinking in virtue of their being human…
circular reasoning…again
 
I realize that simple contradiction doesn’t make an argument, but here goes:

No, it isn’t circular reasoning.
I know that simply agreeing with someone isn’t an argument either but:

I agree.
 
To clarify: Moral can’t be objective in Natrualism. How do you, using the scientific method, study a metaphysical objective moral standard? If it were possible this debate wouldn’t be happening.
you are confusing metaphysical naturalism with moral naturalism - moral naturalism is the position that there are moral facts, but that they are reducible to/supervenient upon natural facts; and these moral facts are objective - propositions concerning them are true or false - just as the natural facts upon which they depend are objective.

the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy has a good synopsis:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

but whatever - i will once again point out that the version of natural law theory to which i subscribe is not morally naturalistic.
40.png
Doug50:
Naturalism: materialism + animal behaviorism. For Naturalism, There is no such thing as an metaphyscial objective morality in Nature. Since evil couldn’t be objectively real then neither would be human rights.

Some animals (lions for example) will genocide another’s offspring. In the case of lions are they committing an evil by their behavior? No. In Naturalism humans are simply one more animal specie. If humans genocide another culture was an objective evil committed? No, not if Naturalism is true. To the culture committing the genocide they are committing a good but to the culture being genocided it is evil. Who’s right? They both are…Why? because that is human nature and also moral relativism.

You don’t get to change definitions for ever one else.
i was never trying to define naturalism simpliciter, let alone moral naturalism…

be that as it may, you should get the relevant definitions straight in your own mind before going on - as it is now, you’re not even talking about the same thing as the rest of us.
 
Jeff Corwin, who does the animal planet is a biologist and calls himself a naturalists. When I say naturalists I’m uning it in the metaphyscial sense of Naturalism. I dont’ think you understand the difference in the metaphysical or normative sense.
as i noted above, you’re conflating metaphysical naturalism and moral naturalism: they’re not the same thing.
40.png
Doug50:
Sorry, as a catholic you don’t get to make up Catholcism. Let’s see: you just denied papal infalibility when speaking on morals since the source of that infalibility comes to the seat of Saint Peter by way of the Holy Spirit.
what has papal infallibility got to do with the foundations of morality?

why can’t the pope be infallible if god is not the source of morality?
 
What do you mean by human nature? Do you mean human nature as being made in the image of God. Or human nature as being another specie of animal on this planet?
human nature is both: we are rational animals - made in the image and likeness of god in our rationality, and embodied as a member of the animal kingdom.
40.png
Doug50:
For naturalism: human nature is WWII Japanese soilder’s tossing live Chinese babies into the air while his buddy bayonetted them on the way down. That was the objective fact. But what was the naturalistic moral fact? Was a naturalistic objective evil committed? Nope, not by these soilders’ human nature…they were simply having fun.
whether or not you’re accurately describing a consequence of some form of (moral) naturalism, it is in no way a consequence of the natural law theory of which i am a proponent.
40.png
Doug50:
When you say you think the source of objective morals are human nature you in effect are saying humans have rights by virtue of being human. That is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.
it’s really not, man. really.

articulate, in syllogistic form, what you think my argument to be - it may help you to see things a little more clearly.
 
Whether it’s circular reasoning or not, it is apparent to me that John and Doug are not using the term “human nature” in the same way. If human nature is what the naturalist says it is, then I agree with Doug - discovering any objective morality in nature is a contradiction.

A moral principle tells us how we ought to act and how we ought not to act. How we should act and how we should not act. But the naturalistic/materialistic worldview demands that animals, including human beings, act only according to their genetic makeup and the application of external forces. When an adult human male molests a child, he is acting according to his genetic makeup and whatever outside forces caused him to act as he did. That’s it.

If how we ought to act is equivalent to our human nature as the naturalist understands it, then the molester acted morally. And the human being whose genetics and other outside forces compelled him not to molest children, and in fact to believe that molesting children is unacceptable, then he is also acting morally. How we act and what we believe is always in accordance with human nature in the naturalist’s worldview. That means that the one who believes and acts as a child molester and the one who believes and acts contrary to the molester are both acting morally. That is moral relativism. There is no discovering how we should or should not act in nature, only how we do and do not act. However we act is moral by necessity for the naturalist.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that this is how many posters here are referring to human nature. The theist presupposes that human nature operates according to a metaphysic that includes God. That has all kinds of implications for how objective morality is possible, not the least of which is the existence of free will. But understand, when the naturalist states that he can discover objective morality in nature, what he is really doing is borrowing from some other metaphysic. Because he can’t consistently operate within in his own naturalistic world view and maintain such a claim.
 
Whether it’s circular reasoning or not, it is apparent to me that John and Doug are not using the term “human nature” in the same way. If human nature is what the naturalist says it is, then I agree with Doug - discovering any objective morality in nature is a contradiction.

A moral principle tells us how we ought to act and how we ought not to act. How we should act and how we should not act. But the naturalistic/materialistic worldview demands that animals, including human beings, act only according to their genetic makeup and the application of external forces. When an adult human male molests a child, he is acting according to his genetic makeup and whatever outside forces caused him to act as he did. That’s it.

If how we ought to act is equivalent to our human nature as the naturalist understands it, then the molester acted morally. And the human being whose genetics and other outside forces compelled him not to molest children, and in fact to believe that molesting children is unacceptable, then he is also acting morally. How we act and what we believe is always in accordance with human nature in the naturalist’s worldview. That means that the one who believes and acts as a child molester and the one who believes and acts contrary to the molester are both acting morally. That is moral relativism. There is no discovering how we should or should not act in nature, only how we do and do not act. However we act is moral by necessity for the naturalist.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that this is how many posters here are referring to human nature. The theist presupposes that human nature operates according to a metaphysic that includes God. That has all kinds of implications for how objective morality is possible, not the least of which is the existence of free will. But understand, when the naturalist states that he can discover objective morality in nature, what he is really doing is borrowing from some other metaphysic. Because he can’t consistently operate within in his own naturalistic world view and maintain such a claim.
I think that was the first post here I understood:rolleyes:
 
what has papal infallibility got to do with the foundations of morality?

why can’t the pope be infallible if god is not the source of morality?
For decades now, our society has opted for the wide and easy path (Mt. 7:13-14) and exalted the self as the primary judge of morality (cf. Rom. 1:18-32). The fruit of this social experiment is all too evident. Some catechisms used today reject or downplay the reality of mortal sin. In contrast, Scripture teaches that unrepented mortal sins bring eternal death (1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Jn. 5:16-19). The Catholic Church proclaims that the **source of morality is found in God’s revealed law, as taught by the Church, and is grounded in natural law **(Rom. 1:18-25; 2:14-16). This deficiency in understanding is directly related to poor teaching on original sin. The Catechism provides the critically important insight that “ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals” (no. 407). One would hope that as some of the other problematic areas are remedied, this area would be naturally corrected.

usccb.org/catechism/document/oralrpt.htm
We have found a meager exposition of Christian moral life
At times an over-emphasis on personal identity and self-respect gives the impression that these are the primary “sources” of morality.** Too often the source of morality found in God’s revealed law, as taught by the Church and grounded in natural law, are not adequately treated.** Where texts could present the binding force of the Church’s moral teaching in certain areas, often they do not. In addition, instruction on what is necessary for the formation of a correct conscience is either inadequately or even mistakenly presented.

“why can’t the pope be infallible if god is not the source of morality?” Because he is human and humans are fallible?

That’s said, I think we may be talking past one another. I’ve always thought the term moral naturalism only confused a debate since, with the sign of the times, Natualism is equated with materialism and secularism, and science. In Aquinas’ time it was taken for granted the human nature included the soul and spirtuality. In our time those aren’t taken for granted anymore.

IOW its easier to simply say moral realism
 
Whether it’s circular reasoning or not, it is apparent to me that John and Doug are not using the term “human nature” in the same way. If human nature is what the naturalist says it is, then I agree with Doug - discovering any objective morality in nature is a contradiction.

A moral principle tells us how we ought to act and how we ought not to act. How we should act and how we should not act. But the naturalistic/materialistic worldview demands that animals, including human beings, act only according to their genetic makeup and the application of external forces. When an adult human male molests a child, he is acting according to his genetic makeup and whatever outside forces caused him to act as he did. That’s it.

If how we ought to act is equivalent to our human nature as the naturalist understands it, then the molester acted morally. And the human being whose genetics and other outside forces compelled him not to molest children, and in fact to believe that molesting children is unacceptable, then he is also acting morally. How we act and what we believe is always in accordance with human nature in the naturalist’s worldview. That means that the one who believes and acts as a child molester and the one who believes and acts contrary to the molester are both acting morally. That is moral relativism. There is no discovering how we should or should not act in nature, only how we do and do not act. However we act is moral by necessity for the naturalist.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that this is how many posters here are referring to human nature. The theist presupposes that human nature operates according to a metaphysic that includes God. That has all kinds of implications for how objective morality is possible, not the least of which is the existence of free will. But understand, when the naturalist states that he can discover objective morality in nature, what he is really doing is borrowing from some other metaphysic. Because he can’t consistently operate within in his own naturalistic world view and maintain such a claim.
Exactly.

Here’s how I look at this debate. If every high school theist (not just Catholics) graduating to college understood that (I’ll qualify) that scientific natualism was in no way compatible with human rights philosophy and that it then follows that “secular humanism” is an oxymoron, that student could stand his ground against any atheist college professor. I’ve done it.

In such a debate, the only defense a scientific naturalist has is to admit that if his naturalism is true then moral relativism (in all its absurdity) is also true…and that there is no such thing a human right.

As much as Catholics may not want to we still have to live in this secularists world view. So you might as well us the terms it’s used to.
 
Put it another way in how I see this moral debate; When Richard Dawkins aruges that religion is the root of evil he is being/doing one of two things:

1 Either he is knowingly, disengenously, attempting to inject his memes to bring about a world view that is to his preference/desire or

2 He is unwittingly stepping out of his naturalist’s world view to inject a metaphysic (evil) that is completely contrary to the metaphysical materialism/naturalism.

Either way, he is factully being dishonest.
 
“why can’t the pope be infallible if god is not the source of morality?” Because he is human and humans are fallible?
now you’re conflating the source of morality with the source of our knowledge of morality; even if god is not the source of morality, he is certainly the source of much of what we know about morality.

look, i can consistently hold these three propositions: “human nature grounds human morality”, and “god knows all true moral propositions and no false ones”, and “god can guarantee the infallibility of the pope when he makes pronouncements concerning moral propositions”.
40.png
Doug50:
That’s said, I think we may be talking past one another. I’ve always thought the term moral naturalism only confused a debate since, with the sign of the times, Natualism is equated with materialism and secularism, and science. In Aquinas’ time it was taken for granted the human nature included the soul and spirtuality. In our time those aren’t taken for granted anymore.

IOW its easier to simply say moral realism
ok. i am a moral realist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top