Moral dilemma.

[danserr]

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.

Again, you conflate moral epistemolgy and ontology. You say “a relativist can condemn things because it is a statement that to the best of our knowedge is wrong.” But the relativist (I gather you mean someone who thinks morality is subjective) denies that objective moral values exist. How can you know something if that something doesn’t exist! ! !

And if society agreed rape were morally right and that those who did not rape someone would be punished, what could the subjectivity possible say to this? A Christian could say that such is objectively absurd because God forbids it, a subjectivist could say nothing!

I have already answered the issue of references to the Old testament in my first post on this thread.

 

[jonfawkes]

Again, you conflate moral epistemolgy and ontology. You say “a relativist can condemn things because it is a statement that to the best of our knowedge is wrong.” But the relativist (I gather you mean someone who thinks morality is subjective) denies that objective moral values exist. How can you know something if that something doesn’t exist! ! !

And if society agreed rape were morally right and that those who did not rape someone would be punished, what could the subjectivity possible say to this? A Christian could say that such is objectively absurd because God forbids it, a subjectivist could say nothing!

I have already answered the issue of references to the Old testament in my first post on this thread.

I think we are saying the same thing from the opposite ends.

How can you say something exists if you don’t have knowledge of it VS
How can you know something if that something doesn’t exist.

What is tripping me up is this

If objective morality exists, how can it have any bearing on us if we don’t know it exists, in the particular. How can we be responsible for laws that we don’t know exist. We have to go with “to the best of our knowledge” which for all practical purposes is subjective.

We can’t know the mind of God, so we have to do the best we can. Our hearts may be hard in relation to our potential as the people in OT are to ours. For example Maybe vegetarianism may be a greater good that we aren’t ready for as a people. It’s justified now but maybe it won’t be in the future. God allowed slavery and multiple wives in the past and doesn’t now.

Object morality can only be theoretical. All we can say is we surmise that we are doing the best that we can at this point.

 

[danserr]

I think we are saying the same thing from the opposite ends.

How can you say something exists if you don’t have knowledge of it VS
How can you know something if that something doesn’t exist.

What is tripping me up is this

If objective morality exists, how can it have any bearing on us if we don’t know it exists, in the particular. How can we be responsible for laws that we don’t know exist. We have to go with “to the best of our knowledge” which for all practical purposes is subjective.

We can’t know the mind of God, so we have to do the best we can. Our hearts may be hard in relation to our potential as the people in OT are to ours. For example Maybe vegetarianism may be a greater good that we aren’t ready for as a people. It’s justified now but maybe it won’t be in the future. God allowed slavery and multiple wives in the past and doesn’t now.

Object morality can only be theoretical. All we can say is we surmise that we are doing the best that we can at this point.

But we do know that those laws exist, at least many of them. The Bible says that God’s law is written on man’s heart. Maybe some we don’t know, but that doesn’t mean it does not exist as I keep saying. And we can know what of the mind of God he reveals to us. He does give us alot. You get quite a bit in the new testament. perhaps the application of some principles is not always clear, but we can’t plead total ignorance, even if some cases are difficult and require extra thought.

So I do think that we know the moral law and we do know that it exists, but knowing it exists is different from it existing.

The reason we say that we are doing the best we can (which i doubt we are anyway) is because there is something to do our best about namely, God’s moral commands.

I mean, america existed even when europe did not know about it. Same with morality (though I would say it’s obvious we do know it). and for the moral argument, we are discussing the existence of objective moral values. not to say that moral epistemology is not important, but it is separate question. You can defend the existence of objective moral values without accounting for moral epistemology.

 

[jonfawkes]

So I do think that we know the moral law and we do know that it exists, but knowing it exists is different from it existing.

You can only speculate, you can’t know.

 

[danserr]

You can only speculate, you can’t know.

Nonsense. I know that murder is wrong. I know that rape and child abuse are wrong. I know that love of God and neighbor is good. I know by God’s direct commands, because the law of God is written on man’s heart, and by the inner witness of the holy spirit. I’m not just speculating those things.

 

[jonfawkes]

Nonsense. I know that murder is wrong. I know that rape and child abuse are wrong. .

No, you believe these things in context of your Catholic Religion not because of an objective truth.

You believe them to be true because you have faith that this is true

I know that love of God and neighbor is good. I know by God’s direct commands, because the law of God is written on man’s heart, and by the inner witness of the holy spirit. I’m not just speculating those things.

It all hinges on faith, which is subjective.

 

[davidv]

No, you believe these things in context of your Catholic Religion not because of an objective truth.

You believe them to be true because you have faith that this is true

It all hinges on faith, which is subjective.

It seem best to me that it is not appropriate that you assign motives to another poster. You have no access to their inner thoughts.

Do you have any support for these claims?

At this point they appear to be unsupported opinion, which I would reject as irrelevant.

 

[jonfawkes]

It seem best to me that it is not appropriate that you assign motives to another poster. You have no access to their inner thoughts.

Do you have any support for these claims?

At this point they appear to be unsupported opinion, which I would reject as irrelevant.

His morality is a Catholic morality. He is Catholic because he believes it is true. He believes it is true because he has faith, faith is subjective.

It’s not conjecture, unless he has no faith.

 

[davidv]

His morality is a Catholic morality. He is Catholic because he believes it is true. He believes it is true because he has faith, faith is subjective.

It’s not conjecture, unless he has no faith.

None of this denies objective truth. What does conjecture have to do with anything in this thread?

Objective truth exists independent of a “subject” to perceive it. If something depends on a subject for its existance it is not objective.

 

[jonfawkes]

None of this denies objective truth. What does conjecture have to do with anything in this thread?

Objective truth exists independent of a “subject” to perceive it. If something depends on a subject for its existance it is not objective.

Objective truth is unknowable, we’d have to know the mind of God. We can approach it with faith but it can never be definitive, and faith is subjective.

 

[davidv]

Objective truth is unknowable, we’d have to know the mind of God.

God has revealed some of His mind to those are humble enough to listen to His Church. Those truths accessible to our reason and those revealed by God are objective.

We can approach it with faith but it can never be definitive, and faith is subjective.

According to Pope Benedict in his book Introduction to Christianity his definition implies that faith is neither objective nor subjective. Faith is an act of the will to believe or not believe the claims of the Church.

 

[jonfawkes]

God has revealed some of His mind to those are humble enough to listen to His Church. Those truths accessible to our reason and those revealed by God are objective.

According to Pope Benedict in his book Introduction to Christianity his definition implies that faith is neither objective nor subjective. Faith is an act of the will to believe or not believe the claims of the Church.

Man can not say with certainty that it is the whole truth. There are things that were permissible in the OT that aren’t now. We have no reason to believe that more won’t be revealed later. So what we believe to be an objective truth may only be a partial truth. You can believe that they exist, as Catholics we do, but you can’t know definitely what they are, only speculate. “This is the truth to the best of our knowledge.”

It is an act of will, one done by an individual, so it’s subjective.

 

[davidv]

Man can not say with certainty that it is the whole truth.

On the contrary, God became man and spoke the objective Truth.

There are things that were permissible in the OT that aren’t now.

How is this relevant?

We have no reason to believe that more won’t be revealed later.

I have a reason. Jesus is the final public revelation of God’s plan for us. The is no more truth to be revealed. Only better explained and made more applicable to changing circumstances.

So what we believe to be an objective truth may only be a partial truth. You can believe that they exist, as Catholics we do, but you can’t know definitely what they are, only speculate. “This is the truth to the best of our knowledge.”

Please demonstate that this is a true statement.

It is an act of will, one done by an individual, so it’s subjective.

Please demonstate that this is a true statement.

 

[jonfawkes]

On the contrary, God became man and spoke the objective Truth.

How is this relevant?

I have a reason. Jesus is the final public revelation of God’s plan for us. The is no more truth to be revealed. Only better explained and made more applicable to changing circumstances.

Please demonstate that this is a true statement.

Please demonstate that this is a true statement.

What are the objective truths He spoke?

That the mind of God is not set when it comes to humans - he gives us what we are ready for. We can’t claim to know His full mind. We can’t know the infinite as finite beings.

How do you know he is final public revelation? How do you know there isn’t more truth?

It is true in that we are not God, so we can’t know His mind. Only God knows God’s plan.

An act of will comes from the mind of the individual. Being an individual act it is subjective.

 

[davidv]

What are the objective truths He spoke?

“I am the way, the truth and the life”

That the mind of God is not set

False, God is unchanging.

when it comes to humans - he gives us what we are ready for. We can’t claim to know His full mind. We can’t know the infinite as finite beings.

We can know what He reveals.

How do you know he is final public revelation? How do you know there isn’t more truth?

Jesus is God, the whole Truth. He isn’t coming again until the end of the world.

It is true in that we are not God, so we can’t know His mind. Only God knows God’s plan.

Not true, God has revealed His plan throughout salvation history.

An act of will comes from the mind of the individual. Being an individual act it is subjective.

Repeating yourself doesn’t make your statement true.
You did not address my request “Please demonstate that these are true statements (see below).”:

jonfawkes:

So what we believe to be an objective truth may only be a partial truth. You can believe that they exist, as Catholics we do, but you can’t know definitely what they are, only speculate. “This is the truth to the best of our knowledge.”

It is an act of will, one done by an individual, so it’s subjective.

 

[jonfawkes]

“I am the way, the truth and the life”

False, God is unchanging.

We can know what He reveals.

Jesus is God, the whole Truth. He isn’t coming again until the end of the world.

Not true, God has revealed His plan throughout salvation history.

Repeating yourself doesn’t make your statement true.
You did not address my request “Please demonstate that these are true statements (see below).”:

How is that an objective moral?

You broke my statement mid sentence - The whole statement is “the mind of God is not set when it comes to humans - he gives us what we are ready for.” Meaning that God is unchanging but what He reveals can change. We only get what we are ready for.

You can’t know that this revelation is the final revelation. Jesus’ return marks the end of time. There is nothing that says more revelation can’t come between His death and resurrection and the end of time.

Salvation isn’t an objective moral - please tell me what are the reveled objective morals.

I thought it might need rephrasing if you can’t see that it’s self evident from the statement. An individuals act of mind makes it a subjective act. That’s what a subjective act is. It stems from the individual. What part don’t you understand? - If I understand the disconnect I can try to explain further.

 

[Betterave]

No, you believe these things in context of your Catholic Religion not because of an objective truth.

This is a false dichotomy, jon: there is no reason why a religion cannot teach objective truths. (At least you haven’t offered any such reason.)

It all hinges on faith, which is subjective.

Faith, and belief of any kind, is ‘subjective’ in the sense that it is grasped by a person (a subject). But that is not what ‘subjective’ means in this context. This is obvious when you think about the fact that by that meaning of ‘subjective,’ if a proposition is ‘objective’ (objectively true), then it would by definition be unknowable, since it would not be ‘subjective,’ and so could not be grasped (and known) by anybody. But that obviously doesn’t make sense.

As for skeptical arguments to the effect that we can’t know that we know, that’s really not relevant. We would just as well have to say we can’t know that we don’t know - wouldn’t we? And where would that leave us?

 

[jonfawkes]

This is a false dichotomy, jon: there is no reason why a religion cannot teach objective truths. (At least you haven’t offered any such reason.)

Faith, and belief of any kind, is ‘subjective’ in the sense that it is grasped by a person (a subject). But that is not what ‘subjective’ means in this context. This is obvious when you think about the fact that by that meaning of ‘subjective,’ if a proposition is ‘objective’ (objectively true), then it would by definition be unknowable, since it would not be ‘subjective,’ and so could not be grasped (and known) by anybody. But that obviously doesn’t make sense.

As for skeptical arguments to the effect that we can’t know that we know, that’s really not relevant. We would just as well have to say we can’t know that we don’t know - wouldn’t we? And where would that leave us?

Of course you can teach there are objective truths, you just can’t say definitively what they are. We are by our nature finite in our understanding, we are not the Infinite.

An Objective truth is true beyond the effect or whim of a subject, a subjective truth is dependent on the view of the subject viewing it.

Faith being an act of will is dependent on the subject to will it. There is no belief without someone to believe it.

We believe that there are Objective truths because our faith teaches us that there are. If they were self evident there would be no need for moral teaching. If I stand in the rain, I get wet. I need no one to teach me that.

So as Catholics, looking for moral instruction, we look to the Church.We are not looking for subjective truths that are dependent on the individual or needs of society but the objective truth. The Church is the closest we can get to the objective truth. We can’t say definitively that they are the objective truth because we are finite beings trying to grasp the mind of the Infinite. We have to have faith in the Church. The act of will that is faith is conditional on the individual. Without faith there is no reason to believe the Church can provide a path to an objective truth. An individuals faith doesn’t affect the nature of an objective truth but it is the hinge on the practice of morality. Since we can’t know definitively but rather only have faith that it is. So in practice it is “We are acting on good faith, that this morality is to the best of our knowledge gained through the Church is as close to an objective truth as we can get” - It’s still an act of faith which requires an individual to will it. The practicality of the morality is subjective because the individual must will it. It is dependent on the individual.

 

[Betterave]

Of course you can teach there are objective truths, you just can’t say definitively what they are. We are by our nature finite in our understanding, we are not the Infinite.

You don’t need to be infinite (God) in order to know objective truths.

An Objective truth is true beyond the effect or whim of a subject, a subjective truth is dependent on the view of the subject viewing it.

Right.

Faith being an act of will is dependent on the subject to will it. There is no belief without someone to believe it.

But the *object *of faith is not dependent on the subject’s whims. A ‘subjective’ act, such as a freely willed act of faith, need not imply that the object of that act is subjective, or that that object is grasped in a merely subjective manner.

We believe that there are Objective truths because our faith teaches us that there are. If they were self evident there would be no need for moral teaching. If I stand in the rain, I get wet. I need no one to teach me that.

That’s not why I believe there are objective truths, nor is that why most people believe it, nor does our faith teach us that that is why we should believe it.

Without faith there is no reason to believe the Church can provide a path to an objective truth.

So what? The Church does not teach that faith is necessary for grasping objective truth, as such. Faith is only necessary for grasping the truths of faith (e.g., the Incarnation); other objective truths can be grasped without faith, by the use of reason.

 

[jonfawkes]

But the *object *of faith is not dependent on the subject’s whims. A ‘subjective’ act, such as a freely willed act of faith, need not imply that the object of that act is subjective.

Exactly - This all I’m saying. Where we differ is the next line -

or that that object is grasped in a merely subjective manner.

By definition the act is subjective. It is contingent on the individual.