Moral dilemma.

[UnityofTrinity]

Since the Catholic Church proposes that truth and morality is objective, that is unchanged and remain unfixed over time, it cause me many questions and doubts.
_ Back in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were the only people, and the first couple according to the Church, and that all come from them. But if so, that means that to fulfill the commandment of God: “Be fruitful and multiply”, their children in come together. But we all know so well that Moses himself forbade this, as well as the Church. But since morality is objective, how can it be reconciled with this story? If this story is true, then morality did change overtime, thus destroy the Objective argument.
_ Many things done by the Old Testaments kings and prophets would be frowned upon by today Church(Etza required all Israeli to abandon their pagan wives and their own children, Moses ordered killing, Joshua listened to the command of God and annihilated the whole town of Jericho, the practice of stone throwing for those who are different in religious practices, and sinners), if these things once done and now frowned upon, that would indicates a change in the moral landscape. Thus once again destroy the objective morality argument.

But if we proposes that morality is subjective, the question will arise about God’s existence. If morality is subjective, why should we follow God’s commandments? If morality can change, that also mean that God can change, which is in stark contradiction with the Scripture.

Please help me, thank you.

 

[promethius]

Since the Catholic Church proposes that truth and morality is objective, that is unchanged and remain unfixed over time, it cause me many questions and doubts.
_ Back in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were the only people, and the first couple according to the Church, and that all come from them. But if so, that means that to fulfill the commandment of God: “Be fruitful and multiply”, their children in come together. But we all know so well that Moses himself forbade this, as well as the Church. But since morality is objective, how can it be reconciled with this story? If this story is true, then morality did change overtime, thus destroy the Objective argument.
_ Many things done by the Old Testaments kings and prophets would be frowned upon by today Church(Etza required all Israeli to abandon their pagan wives and their own children, Moses ordered killing, Joshua listened to the command of God and annihilated the whole town of Jericho, the practice of stone throwing for those who are different in religious practices, and sinners), if these things once done and now frowned upon, that would indicates a change in the moral landscape. Thus once again destroy the objective morality argument.

But if we proposes that morality is subjective, the question will arise about God’s existence. If morality is subjective, why should we follow God’s commandments? If morality can change, that also mean that God can change, which is in stark contradiction with the Scripture.

Please help me, thank you.

You’re confusing deontological theories as being strictly limited to natural law theory. The reality is that Divine Command is Deontological as well, simply in a different manner.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

You’re confusing deontological theories as being strictly limited to natural law theory. The reality is that Divine Command is Deontological as well, simply in a different manner.

So God can basically violate all 10 commandments and we can still call it holy?
If so, then there’s no such thing as morality. Since God is not the God of confusion, we must agree that God can’t violate all 10 of His commandments, for so would contradict God’s nature, which would eliminate His existence(for the existence of God pertain to His nature alone).

Let say that I as God command you to rape 10 women. After you’ve raped all 10 women, can you call it a moral act simply because I, as God, commanded you to do it?

 

[tonyrey]

So God can basically violate all 10 commandments and we can still call it holy?
If so, then there’s no such thing as morality. Since God is not the God of confusion, we must agree that God can’t violate all 10 of His commandments, for so would contradict God’s nature, which would eliminate His existence(for the existence of God pertain to His nature alone).

Let say that I as God command you to rape 10 women. After you’ve raped all 10 women, can you call it a moral act simply because I, as God, commanded you to do it?

Definitely not! All the commandments stem from the fact that God is Love…

 

[danserr]

I’m inclined to think that you are confusing “absolute” and “objective” morality, which are two different things. A friend once told me that she talked to someone who tried to refute objective morality by claiming that there is no objective morality, some things are right at some times and wrong at other times. Your questions seems in this line of thinking when you refer to objective morality having to be unchanged. So first a couple definitions.

Objective- independent of what humans think. So if we say rape is objectively wrong we mean that is wrong no matter what anyone thinks, even if society agrees it is right.
subjective- dependant on what humans think or perceive. (liking chocolate or not liking chocolate for instance.
Absolute- binding on all persons at all times.

So there is a slight different between objective morality and absolute morality. For example, it is not absolutely wrong to kill someone. If someone were trying to rape and kill your wife/child etc. it would be not only morally permissible, but probably morally required to kill that person if it were necessary to protect your wife/child. On the other hand, it would be wrong to demand a man’s wallet and kill him if he did not give it to me. so killing another man is not absolutely wrong, but in certain (most) circumstance it is objectively wrong. It is objectively wrong to kill in one circumstance and objectively right in the other because independently of what I think, an independent moral standard (God’s nature) exists by which we measure objective moral values and duties.

So what about the Old testament. The first thing to note is that given what I say above, referring to supposed old testament done supposedly under God’s command, this is not an objection to the existence of objective moral values or basing them in God. Why? Because all the theist need do is suggest that perhaps the Hebrews were mistaken in attributing such commands to God. I have then a couple thoughts about the Old Testament stuff and your question.

• Can God change morality and have it still be objective?
  a). In one sense yes. For instance, God permitted the Old Testament men to have multiples wives, but now forbids this. We may understand this as a “concession.” Jesus is always explaining that God allowed such and such because of the hardness in men’s hearts, but now such and such is forbidden. In the same way a college english prof. might allow his freshmen to write sentences in the passive voice, (the paper was written), but require his Juniors to write in the active voice (He wrote the paper). It remains objectively true that the preferred sentence structure is active voice, but the prof. allows a concession to his freshman who are still learning. This is one way God’s commands may “change” but still be objective.
  b). The Israelites may simply have been wrong in attributing those commands to God (stone adulterers, slaughter caananites etc.). We could still consider the bible inspired, but just not literally inerrant. (though we could still consider it inerrant in another sense).

Did adam and eve’s children committ incest? I doubt it. There is really no good reason to take that story literally. And the second creation story says that God created a race of adam and a race of eve. Also, God gave cain (or was it seth) a wife, which implies there were other people around.

Let say that I as God command you to rape 10 women

• God is a greatest conceivable being, a being worthy of worship. Asking what I would do if he commanded me to rape 10 women is like asking "if a square circle existed, how would I measure its area. It is nonsense and a contradiction in terms.

 

[jonfawkes]

Objective- independent of what humans think. So if we say rape is objectively wrong we mean that is wrong no matter what anyone thinks, even if society agrees it is right.
subjective- dependant on what humans think or perceive. (liking chocolate or not liking chocolate for instance.
Absolute- binding on all persons at all times.

So there is a slight different between objective morality and absolute morality. For example, it is not absolutely wrong to kill someone. If someone were trying to rape and kill your wife/child etc. it would be not only morally permissible, but probably morally required to kill that person if it were necessary to protect your wife/child. On the other hand, it would be wrong to demand a man’s wallet and kill him if he did not give it to me. so killing another man is not absolutely wrong, but in certain (most) circumstance it is objectively wrong. It is objectively wrong to kill in one circumstance and objectively right in the other because independently of what I think, an independent moral standard (God’s nature) exists by which we measure objective moral values and duties.

I’m unclear with your example - your example of objective morality (conditional) - right under this condition, wrong under this condition - is based on human thought. It’s not “no matter what anyone thinks” it is the ability to think that gives us the ability to distinguish the difference. It’s conditional on what we think is justified or not. e.x. Self Defense is justified, murder while robbing is not justified.

 

[danserr]

I’m unclear with your example - your example of objective morality (conditional) - right under this condition, wrong under this condition - is based on human thought. It’s not “no matter what anyone thinks” it is the ability to think that gives us the ability to distinguish the difference. It’s conditional on what we think is justified or not. e.x. Self Defense is justified, murder while robbing is not justified.

My example is that killing is not absolutely wrong (ie wrong for everyone in every circumstance), but it is still objectively wrong in some (murder) and objectively right in other cases (self defense). When I say that it is objectively wrong, I mean that it is objectively wrong to murder someone, even if I think it is not. I mean that it is objectively right to kill in self defense even if someone else does not think so.

When I says it is wrong “no matter what anyone thinks,” I mean that murder is wrong even if someone, or even a majority, or even everyone though it was good. It is objectively wrong in this sense because a real right and real wrong exist and are defined by God’s nature. It is certainly by reason adn thought that we perceive morality, but when we do this we perceive something that exists external to the human mind in the same way that when I see a tree, I my eyes perceive it, but it exists independently from my eyes, and exists even if a person is blind and can’t see it. I mean that morality is objective in this sense. And to say that some things are not absolutely wrong is not to say they cannot be objectively wrong.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

The Ten Commandants and associated Mosaic laws are binding edicts to man that have been handed down to the nation of Israel. As for the Ten Commandments specifically, the first three commandments deal with man’s proper relationship with his Creator and God; the other seven concern man’s relationship with his fellow man. These laws are not binding onto God but to the nation of Israel. Through the founding fathers (e.g. Abraham, et. al) with the Jews was formally established with Mosaic laws. Laws are not binding until given and they cannot by applied to those not formally bound to them. Consequently, one cannot be held to account for laws not yet in force and to which they are not formally bound to follow.

It would not be appropriate to charge individuals for past actions for a law not yet existent, despite any apparent universal applicability of the morality of the law. In addition, an individual could not be charged with a crime if they committed the “offence”, which is out of the jurisdiction of the law. For instance, a law that would proscribe abortion could not (in all fairness) be retroactively enforced against all those that facilitated such actions in the past. However, this law would be in force going forward and to any individuals born into assimilated into the covenant of the state.

The key difference is that it has been made explicit that certain actions (e.g. abortion) are not morally acceptable and avoiding such action are now formally binding. * In any event, that is not to say that all abortions have not been always morally reprehensible or offensive to those of principled dispositions*.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

My example is that killing is not absolutely wrong (ie wrong for everyone in every circumstance), but it is still objectively wrong in some (murder) and objectively right in other cases (self defense). When I say that it is objectively wrong, I mean that it is objectively wrong to murder someone, even if I think it is not. I mean that it is objectively right to kill in self defense even if someone else does not think so.

When I says it is wrong “no matter what anyone thinks,” I mean that murder is wrong even if someone, or even a majority, or even everyone though it was good. It is objectively wrong in this sense because a real right and real wrong exist and are defined by God’s nature. It is certainly by reason adn thought that we perceive morality, but when we do this we perceive something that exists external to the human mind in the same way that when I see a tree, I my eyes perceive it, but it exists independently from my eyes, and exists even if a person is blind and can’t see it. I mean that morality is objective in this sense. And to say that some things are not absolutely wrong is not to say they cannot be objectively wrong.

So morality is the ability to know when something is right and when something is wrong?

 

[jonfawkes]

My example is that killing is not absolutely wrong (ie wrong for everyone in every circumstance), but it is still objectively wrong in some (murder) and objectively right in other cases (self defense). When I say that it is objectively wrong, I mean that it is objectively wrong to murder someone, even if I think it is not. I mean that it is objectively right to kill in self defense even if someone else does not think so.

When I says it is wrong “no matter what anyone thinks,” I mean that murder is wrong even if someone, or even a majority, or even everyone though it was good. It is objectively wrong in this sense because a real right and real wrong exist and are defined by God’s nature. It is certainly by reason adn thought that we perceive morality, but when we do this we perceive something that exists external to the human mind in the same way that when I see a tree, I my eyes perceive it, but it exists independently from my eyes, and exists even if a person is blind and can’t see it. I mean that morality is objective in this sense. And to say that some things are not absolutely wrong is not to say they cannot be objectively wrong.

A tree has a physical presence, morality only manifests through action. We judge the action right/wrong good or bad based on the circumstances of that action.

How is different form Aesthetics? - we have a tree, which is objective reality but we can judge a tree based on our needs. Good for shade bad for fruit, etc. It is conditional to our needs.

The act of killing is an objective reality the judgment of that act is conditional. Self defense good, murder bad.

 

[davidv]

So morality is the ability to know when something is right and when something is wrong?

Yes. Morality is the correct application of moral law.

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

 

[danserr]

So morality is the ability to know when something is right and when something is wrong?

No. or at least it depends how you use the words. Morality is the human tendency to make “ought” statements. “you ough not steal etc.” Now the question is, is this objective or subjective? The correct answer is that it is objective, because morality is true indepdendant of what people think, because it is defined by God’s nature.

There is a difference betwen moral epistemology, which is perception and knowledge of moral values, and moral ontology, which is the existence of objective values. Avoiding confusing these two things is actually very important.

 

[jonfawkes]

The Ten Commandants and associated Mosaic laws are binding edicts to man that have been handed down to the nation of Israel. As for the Ten Commandments specifically, the first three commandments deal with man’s proper relationship with his Creator and God; the other seven concern man’s relationship with his fellow man. These laws are not binding onto God but to the nation of Israel. Through the founding fathers (e.g. Abraham, et. al) with the Jews was formally established with Mosaic laws. Laws are not binding until given and they cannot by applied to those not formally bound to them. Consequently, one cannot be held to account for laws not yet in force and to which they are not formally bound to follow.

It would not be appropriate to charge individuals for past actions for a law not yet existent, despite any apparent universal applicability of the morality of the law. In addition, an individual could not be charged with a crime if they committed the “offence”, which is out of the jurisdiction of the law. For instance, a law that would proscribe abortion could not (in all fairness) be retroactively enforced against all those that facilitated such actions in the past. However, this law would be in force going forward and to any individuals born into assimilated into the covenant of the state.

The key difference is that it has been made explicit that certain actions (e.g. abortion) are not morally acceptable and avoiding such action are now formally binding. * In any event, that is not to say that all* abortions have not been always morally reprehensible or offensive to those of principled dispositions.

This makes morality revealed, which it makes morality subjective to revelation. It’s also conditional to time it’s revealed. Neither of which are absolute. It’s basically “These are the rules, which may be subject to revisions in he future”

 

[danserr]

A tree has a physical presence, morality only manifests through action. We judge the action right/wrong good or bad based on the circumstances of that action.

You are confusing moral ontology (the existence of objective moral values) with moral epistemology (out perception and knowledge of those values). Whether a person perceives morality (like seeing a tree) is a different question from if the tree (morality) exists.

How is different form Aesthetics? - we have a tree, which is objective reality but we can judge a tree based on our needs. Good for shade bad for fruit, etc. It is conditional to our needs.

 

[danserr]

This makes morality revealed, which it makes morality subjective to revelation. It’s also conditional to time it’s revealed. Neither of which are absolute. It’s basically “These are the rules, which may be subject to revisions in he future”

something being revealed does not make it subject to revelation. The issue of the *existence *of moral values and our knowledge of those values are two different things. The morality always existed even before it was revealed because God and God’s nature always existed.

Also, look at my fist post, you also need to distinguish between objective and absolute, I showed how something could be objective, but not absolute.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

So let say if I were to be an atheist and a postmodernsist who say that morality is relative to human perception. How would this argument is par against the atheist’s argument? So the action kill in itself is not a sin but kill in which situation in a sin? What about other crimes? Rape? Robberies? Is it ok to rob the rich and give it to the poor like Robin Hood since morality can be circumstancial.

 

[danserr]

So let say if I were to be an atheist and a postmodernsist who say that morality is relative to human perception. How would this argument is par against the atheist’s argument? So the action kill in itself is not a sin but kill in which situation in a sin? What about other crimes? Rape? Robberies? Is it ok to rob the rich and give it to the poor like Robin Hood since morality can be circumstancial.

So now you are asking what if you deny that objective morality exists and say instead that morality is subjective, meaning that it is entirely dependent on what people think. This means what we speak of as morality is only social convention, or the result of evolution, or some manner of socio-biological conditioning. This means we only think rape is wrong because we evolved to think it and society thinks it is. But we could have evolved differently, or maybe society could have decided rape is ok. Imagine a society that believed rape was ok. If objective moral values exist, you could say that their beliefs are wrong. But if morality is subjective, then it would be impossible to condemn them, because morality would be whatever society says it is (The same way we drive on the right hand side of the road instead of the left).

So to a relativist, I would point out that on their belief, they cannot condemn war, rape, child abuse as really evil, they can only say they personally think they are evil (like I prefer dark beer to light), or that society says they are wrong. And why should anyone else care about their beliefs if they are that kind of belief?

So the action kill in itself is not a sin but kill in which situation in a sin? What about other crimes? Rape? Robberies? Is it ok to rob the rich and give it to the poor like Robin Hood since morality can be circumstancial.

it depends on divine commands, since God’s commands are necessary expressions of his nature. To kill in self-defense is not a sin because God allows it. Rape is never permitted because God always forbids it. So rape is an example of something that is absolutely wrong (forbidden to everyone at alll times) and objectively wrong (because a morally perfect God forbids it).

Whether it is ok to rob the rich to feed the poor, I personally do not know. but it is either objectively right or wrong because God either forbids it or he allows it. But the question of how we know it is right or wrong is one of moral epistemology, and is separate from whether it is really right or wrong.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes;7451990:

A tree has a physical presence, morality only manifests through action. We judge the action right/wrong good or bad based on the circumstances of that action.

You are confusing moral ontology (the existence of objective moral values) with moral epistemology (out perception and knowledge of those values). Whether a person perceives morality (like seeing a tree) is a different question from if the tree (morality) exists.

But what makes it bad? This is the moral argument. That murder is really objectively bad because it is forbidden by God. So there is something real

outside of the act of murder or outside of human perception, and that is God’s command “thou shall not murder”. This is the something real. In the same way I can judge the statement “i see a tree” as true or false because there is a tree there (or not). You seem to imply that only something that has a physical presence is real, but you see that is hardly the case, God’s commands, which flow from his nature are also real and it is by them that we measure the morality of actions.

Ontology can only be speculation without epistemology. You can’t know what you don’t know. To assert that something exists without knowledge is speculation.

No, I’m saying that something can exist, like Aesthetics, but is subjective to the observer. The physical world is objective how we interact and react is subjective. Even a law of God is subjective to which religion you practice.

 

[danserr]

Ontology can only be speculation without epistemology. You can’t know what you don’t know. To assert that something exists without knowledge is speculation.

But you agree now that they are too different things. It one thing for me to know a tree (or moral command) exists, and another for it to actually exist.

No, I’m saying that something can exist, like Aesthetics, but is subjective to the observer.

Here you are saying that morality is subjective then, on which see my post number 17. Either this or you still insist on conflating moral ontology and epistemology. To clarify let me ask you to answer a). if a man believes that it is ok to rape someone, is it really right to rape someone?
If you believe in objective moral values, you would have to answer no, it is not right to rape someone because a real objective morality exists defined by God’s nature. The fact that he does not believe this moral command does not mean it does not exist in the same way a blind man’s failure to see a tree does not mean that the tree is not really there.
(and please dont say, “well it’s true for him the tree is not there.” This is nonsense, the tree is certainly there whether he sees it or not, it is more accurate and descriptive to say that the tree exists, but he does not see if. Same way it is more accurrate to say of a rapist that rape is morally evil, whether or not he denies it).

Even a law of God is subjective to which religion you practice.

Belief in them is, but it does not follow that the law itself is. (You are not being very careful with how you are using lanague, you really mean “relative to the religion you practice.”) A muslim could believe it’s ok to have 4 wives, a morman 8, and a Christian 1. But since God commands we only have one, then it is objectively true that God commands monogamy, and that the muslim and morman are wrong even though they do not know they are or believe they are right.

 

[jonfawkes]

So now you are asking what if you deny that objective morality exists and say instead that morality is subjective, meaning that it is entirely dependent on what people think. This means what we speak of as morality is only social convention, or the result of evolution, or some manner of socio-biological conditioning. This means we only think rape is wrong because we evolved to think it and society thinks it is. But we could have evolved differently, or maybe society could have decided rape is ok. Imagine a society that believed rape was ok. If objective moral values exist, you could say that their beliefs are wrong. But if morality is subjective, then it would be impossible to condemn them, because morality would be whatever society says it is (The same way we drive on the right hand side of the road instead of the left).

So to a relativist, I would point out that on their belief, they cannot condemn war, rape, child abuse as really evil, they can only say they personally think they are evil (like I prefer dark beer to light), or that society says they are wrong. And why should anyone else care about their beliefs if they are that kind of belief?

it depends on divine commands, since God’s commands are necessary expressions of his nature. To kill in self-defense is not a sin because God allows it. Rape is never permitted because God always forbids it. So rape is an example of something that is absolutely wrong (forbidden to everyone at alll times) and objectively wrong (because a morally perfect God forbids it).

Whether it is ok to rob the rich to feed the poor, I personally do not know. but it is either objectively right or wrong because God either forbids it or he allows it. But the question of how we know it is right or wrong is one of moral epistemology, and is separate from whether it is really right or wrong.

A relativist can condemn things because it is a statement of “to the best of our knowledge” this is wrong. As a society we agree to these precepts. Those that don’t follow are subject to the repercussions. If in the future our understanding changes, so will the "rules. "

In the case of rape there are conditional repercussions for the act of rape in the bible. There are different levels of “wrong”.

Deuteronomy 22:23-29

28-29 is basically, “you broke it, you bought it.” Which isn’t a strong condemnation - imo.