Moral dilemma.

[UnityofTrinity]

In Mere Christianity, C.S Lewis simply stated that the Law of Morality is like a pianist, and our instincts and actions are the keys. It is the decision of that eternal pianist that should show which instinct is rightly done in which time.

That being said, Jon, there is an objective truth in which all men must follow. This truth can be fragmented among all men, it can be unfulfilled, but they’re still truths nonetheless. A man in island x can marry 2 wives while a man in island y can marry 3, but the eternal and objective truth is that you can’t marry whoever you wishes, and it is immoral for you to covet other’s wife. Likewise, a Buddhist might not believe in God at all, while a Muslim only believes Jesus is a prophet, nonetheless, it is not permissible for both to murder anyone(capital punishment is an another topic).

Thus, we can dissent that not everything done in the Old Testaments are right, and not everything done by the Law of Moses is accepted by Jesus. For Jesus cam to fulfilled to Laws, He came to deepen and fulfill what GOD WISHES, not what Moses set out because of the hardness of man’s heart. What we can say in the clearest sense is not that God changed His law or that objective morality changes overtime. But that men did not know the absolute truth until Jesus cam and establish His Holy Church. Since Jesus came and established His Holy Church, and gave the Church the authority to bind and loose, we can be confident in all of Her teachings in regard of faith and moral.

I must disagree with Jon, yes, our definition of morality comes from our “Catholic religion”, but does it mean it is false? The Church, as well as Christ Our Lord didn’t come to establish any new morality, but only came to show man what it is in themselves the whole time. That’s also the job of all ancient sages since the beginning of time. They came not to teach anything new, but to remind man of that one objective and eternal truth, and with them each time brings a new fragment of that objective truth to mankind.

 

[Betterave]

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

So what? Obviously it’s “contingent on the individual” insofar as it is the act of an individual. (That applies just as well to the individual’s ‘subjective’ act of grasping the truth of the proposition “if I stand in the rain, I’ll get wet.”) This doesn’t imply that “that object (which the individual grasps) is grasped in a merely subjective manner.”

 

[davidv]

How is that an objective moral?

To what does this refer?

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.

So what? It was easier to display the multiple errors embedded the statement.

You can’t know that this revelation is the final revelation. Jesus’ return marks the end of time.

On what basis can say what I know or don’t know?

There is nothing that says more revelation can’t come between His death and resurrection and the end of time.

Is the Church nothing? The Church has stated in very clear terms that public revelation of God was completed by the time of the death of the last apostle.

66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

Underlining is mine.

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

Agreed. Salvation is not a moral. Salvation is a number of things, one of which should be our eathly objective to enter heaven.
Is the greated commandment(“You shalllove the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.”) an objective moral standard? Are the tem commandments?

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.

Well I understood the words and didn’t agree with what they said because they are not self-evident.

The disconnect is that I think the statements that I was referring to were false. And I was asking you to prove me wrong.

 

[jonfawkes]

UnityofTrinty - I’m not disagreeing with you - I am just saying that it a matter of faith. We can only reason to a point and then have faith that we are correct. We can not know definitively.

Betterave - It is by our subjective faith that we can believe that there are objective truths and that we have access to them. There is no definitive way to determine if they are objective.

An analogy from science - Gravity - There is Newtonian Theory that explains part but not all, General relativity explains some but not all, quantum mechanics which addresses gravity on a quantum level isn’t in sync with the other two. So we can surmise that there must be a theory that explains both but we don’t know what it is. We can only reason so far. We may discover it in the future but at this point it is speculation.

So as long as our practical morality is based on faith that there is objective morality, our practical morality is subjective in terms of our faith. This doesn’t discount objective morality, but doesn’t make it accessible with out faith either.

David - you are making any points with the exception of the CCC - again your reading comprehension is lacking. You are taking 4 words out of the whole statement -

“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

It’s not to be expected - It doesn’t count it out. It even says “Even if Revelation is complete” which is not a definitive statement but a conditional one. And Then “it has not been made completely explicit” - which is exactly my point - even if moral absolutes exist ( and we believe they do) - we can’t know them definitively.

It is a matter of faith and faith is subjective.

 

[Betterave]

Betterave - It is by our subjective faith that we can believe that there are objective truths and that we have access to them. There is no definitive way to determine if they are objective.

So you claim, but your claim is false, it would seem. You face the following two problems: it is contrary to the Catholic faith, so if you do hold to the Catholic faith, you shouldn’t believe it; and it is contrary to reason, so if you want to be reasonable, you shouldn’t believe it.

 

[jonfawkes]

So you claim, but your claim is false, it would seem. You face the following two problems: it is contrary to the Catholic faith, so if you do hold to the Catholic faith, you shouldn’t believe it; and it is contrary to reason, so if you want to be reasonable, you shouldn’t believe it.

The CCC seems to support my position. Even if revelation is finished we aren’t done receiving it.

How is it contrary to reason? It seems to be the only reasonable position to take - to say that we don’t know everything. That we must go with the sum of our knowledge with the reservation that we may gain more knowledge in the future.

Can you explain how you can get to the position “we know what the absolutes are” through reason? Seems to defy reason.

 

[Betterave]

The CCC seems to support my position. Even if revelation is finished we aren’t done receiving it.

No, the CCC does not support your position. The fact that we might come to understand what we know more clearly someday does not make what we know now to be untrue, nor does it make it neither true nor false but merely what happens to be currently accepted by us.

How is it contrary to reason? It seems to be the only reasonable position to take - to say that we don’t know everything. That we must go with the sum of our knowledge with the reservation that we may gain more knowledge in the future.

Of course we don’t know everything. That doesn’t imply we don’t know anything. Relativism is the claim that we don’t know anything - that true and false just don’t apply to propositions like “it is wrong to derive pleasure from torturing an innocent child.” There’s nothing remotely plausible about that claim, therefore it is not reasonable to believe it, nor to believe in the truth of relativism, which implies it.

Can you explain how you can get to the position “we know what the absolutes are” through reason? Seems to defy reason.

Where to start… Seems to defy what reason? Answer me this: Have you spent much time engaging in moral reasoning? Has your experience of knowing about morality been entirely based on appeals to Church authority up to this point in your life?

 

[jonfawkes]

No, the CCC does not support your position. The fact that we might come to understand what we know more clearly someday does not make what we know now to be untrue.

Of course we don’t know everything. That doesn’t imply we don’t know anything. Relativism is the claim that we don’t know anything - that true and false just don’t apply to propositions like “it is wrong to derive pleasure from torturing an innocent child.” There’s nothing remotely plausible about that claim, therefore it is not reasonable to believe it, nor to believe in the truth of relativism, which implies it.

Where to start… Answer me this: Have you spent much time engaging in moral reasoning? Has your experience of knowing about morality been entirely based on appeals to Church authority up to this point in your life?

A partial truth by definition isn’t the whole truth, so it can’t be absolute. An absolute means that there isn’t anything else to know. You reach the end, it’s absolute.

Relativism (I posted this a while back, maybe it slipped under the radar) From Word IQ-

Moral relativism is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths. It not only holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. Many relativists see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries. Some would even suggest that one person’s ethical judgments or acts cannot be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

Not every variation of relativism holds that one’s morality can’t be judged by another, some do but not all. You can argue against that position but that’s not the one I’m addressing. The first part of the statement is what I’m addressing.

Moral relativism is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths. It not only holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. Many relativists see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries.

Even if moral absolutes exist we can’t know them definitively. The fact that we say we can know them hinges on our faith in the Catholic Church. The Church could be considered a social structure with it’s own customs and ethos. So it fits - imo - with that part of the definition of moral relativism.

I studied some philosophy in college so I’m familiar with the subject outside the church but not an expert

 

[danserr]

A partial truth by definition isn’t the whole truth, so it can’t be absolute. An absolute means that there isn’t anything else to know. You reach the end, it’s absolute

Moral relativism is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths. It not only holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. Many relativists see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries.

The problem is that you are playing with definitions. You should know that you need to speak more precisedly, and always use words in the same, clear sense.

absolute, as i say in my first post, means binding on everyone at all times. Morality as a whole, is absolute in this sense, that it is binding on everyone at all times. But certain acts may or may not be absolute. (killing is wrong if it is murder, but right if it is self-defense, spanking a child may be ok if you are their parent, and wrong if you are not).

So this has nothing to do with “knowing the whole truth,” since you are using the word “absolute” incorrectly.

Also, the definition moral relativism you cite, makes a similar mistake, the are really saying that there are no “objective” moral truths. That is to say that the existence of morality is dependant on human thought (subjective).

there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth

As I have kept saying earlier. God’s nature is that standard. If you deny any objective standard, then objective moral truths do not exist. That is what moral relativism claims.

 

[jonfawkes]

The problem is that you are playing with definitions. You should know that you need to speak more precisedly, and always use words in the same, clear sense.

absolute, as i say in my first post, means binding on everyone at all times. Morality as a whole, is absolute in this sense, that it is binding on everyone at all times. But certain acts may or may not be absolute. (killing is wrong if it is murder, but right if it is self-defense, spanking a child may be ok if you are their parent, and wrong if you are not).

So this has nothing to do with “knowing the whole truth,” since you are using the word “absolute” incorrectly.

Also, the definition moral relativism you cite, makes a similar mistake, the are really saying that there are no “objective” moral truths. That is to say that the existence of morality is dependant on human thought (subjective).

As I have kept saying earlier. God’s nature is that standard. If you deny any objective standard, then objective moral truths do not exist. That is what moral relativism claims.

Being absolute says that it is the final word on a subject - from your post -

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.

Binding for all times - there is nothing else to say on the subject. There isn’t going to be any further revelation. That is saying “that” ( the absolute) is all there is to know about that subject.

Absolutes are based on Objective Moral Truths - again there isn’t room for discussion about it - the Objective Moral is the end of the discussion. It is independent of what we think.

We have to have faith that these things are the end of the discussion. Faith is subjective.

 

[Betterave]

A partial truth by definition isn’t the whole truth, so it can’t be absolute. An absolute means that there isn’t anything else to know. You reach the end, it’s absolute.

No, ‘absolute’ does not mean “there isn’t anything else to know.” It really doesn’t!

Relativism (I posted this a while back, maybe it slipped under the radar) From Word IQ-

Not every variation of relativism holds that one’s morality can’t be judged by another, some do but not all. You can argue against that position but that’s not the one I’m addressing. The first part of the statement is what I’m addressing.

That’s right. Good catch. I should have said:

Relativism is the claim that we don’t know anything absolutely - that true and false just don’t apply to propositions like “it is wrong to derive pleasure from torturing an innocent child” - unless we mean ‘true or false for this or that culture.’ But still: there’s nothing remotely plausible about that claim, therefore it is not reasonable to believe it, nor to believe in the truth of relativism, which implies it.

Even if moral absolutes exist we can’t know them definitively. The fact that we say we can know them hinges on our faith in the Catholic Church. The Church could be considered a social structure with it’s own customs and ethos. So it fits - imo - with that part of the definition of moral relativism.

Suppose we can’t know moral absolutes definitively; so what? We can know them provisionally, can’t we? Assuming we can, then there is no reason to think that relativism is true, to think that moral principles and judgments are reducible to arbitrary and mutable cultural artifacts.

I studied some philosophy in college so I’m familiar with the subject outside the church but not an expert

Well you didn’t study as much philosophy as I have.

What did you learn in college? Were you taught that the claim “we know what the absolutes are through reason” defies reason? How was this claim justified?

 

[jonfawkes]

If a moral truth is absolute it is unchanging, it is - binding on all persons at all times.

For the sake of argument a ridiculous example “Kissing a Frog is immoral” - that means that there is no reason to discuss or explore kissing frogs, we already all we need to know about kissing frogs - it’s immoral - end of story.

I am saying that we can only know them provisionally, which in practicality functions just like relativism. Specifically Meta-ethical relativism,

• that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.

The purpose of which is to have a cohesive and well running society. Societies self interest doesn’t gain by torturing and killing it’s children - it works against the goals of the society.

So, I am saying that we can’t know if we received the final word, ( the absolute ) so we function with good faith on the best information we have available, exactly the same thing as Meta-ethical relativism does.

I don’t know how much you studied so I can’t comment.

 

[davidv]

If a moral truth is absolute it is unchanging, it is - binding on all persons at all times.

For the sake of argument a ridiculous example “Kissing a Frog is immoral” - that means that there is no reason to discuss or explore kissing frogs, we already all we need to know about kissing frogs - it’s immoral - end of story.

I am saying that we can only know them provisionally, which in practicality functions just like relativism. Specifically Meta-ethical relativism,

• that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.

The purpose of which is to have a cohesive and well running society. Societies self interest doesn’t gain by torturing and killing it’s children - it works against the goals of the society.

So, I am saying that we can’t know if we received the final word, ( the absolute ) so we function with good faith on the best information we have available, exactly the same thing as Meta-ethical relativism does.

I don’t know how much you studied so I can’t comment.

Do you know why the above is a fallacious argument?

It is called a strawman.

Why? Because you substituted the word “absolute” for the word “objective”.
Two different words, two different meanings. Please explain what you think the difference is. No one is arguing that absolute truth applies to all at all times. The point you seem to keep missing is that not all moral truths are absolute. In addition, not being absolute doesn’t make them relative. There is a third category, objective.

Given this, your story about kissing frogs is not relevant as it does not address “objective” truth.

 

[jonfawkes]

Do you know why the above is a fallacious argument?

It is called a strawman.

Why? Because you substituted the word “absolute” for the word “objective”.
Two different words, two different meanings. Please explain what you think the difference is. No one is arguing that absolute truth applies to all at all times. The point you seem to keep missing is that not all moral truths are absolute. In addition, not being absolute doesn’t make them relative. There is a third category, objective.

Given this, your story about kissing frogs is not relevant as it does not address “objective” truth.

Please go read Post #5 of this thread - Your reading comprehension needs work.

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.

 

[davidv]

Please go read Post #5 of this thread - Your reading comprehension needs work.

Whether my reading comprehension needs work is not your call.
I will not respond this further to this post as I fear I will stoop to your level of uncharity in doing so.

 

[jonfawkes]

Whether my reading comprehension needs work is not your call.
I will not respond this further to this post as I fear I will stoop to your level of uncharity in doing so.

I agree with your decision.

 

[danserr]

Please go read Post #5 of this thread - Your reading comprehension needs work.

On the contrary, he interpreted my post correctly, you continue to insists that absolute and objective mean the same thing.

If a moral truth is absolute it is unchanging, it is - binding on all persons at all times

There is not need to add the word “unchanging”, the definition I supplied was clearer without it. Something not being absolute does not automatically make it relative because, there is still the category of objective. A parent may spank a child and have this be objectively right, a stranger do it and have this be objectively wrong. So spanking a child may not be absolutely wrong, but still objectively right or wrong in certain situations for certain people.

Your reading comprehension needs work.
I agree with your decision.

If you are going to begin to taunt people, this post will soon become pointless.

 

[jonfawkes]

No, he says that your definition wasn’t being argued -

No one is arguing that absolute truth applies to all at all times.

I reposted #5 to show that yes in fact that someone (namely you ) is saying that absolute morals " binding on all persons at all times."

I am using your definitions.

If something is “binding on all persons at all times.” it will not change, It can not change. It is “applicable to all persons at all times” There is no wiggle room. You can not have something that is “for all times” that changes.

Objective and Absolute are interrelated. For something to be absolute it has to be objective.

It is impossible to know definitively that we know the objective truth. We need faith to believe that there are Objective and absolute truths, and that we have access to them. Faith is relative. There are many individuals with faith and many faiths. You choose faith. It is an act of will. It depends on what you think and feel - relative.

We can believe we know Objective truths provisionally. It is an act of faith. We may know something more in the future.

So in practicality we are acting the same as relativists - specifically meta-ethical relativism. Society determines what is best for the society based on societies needs. It’s not merely “if it feels good do it”

Catholic Morality and Meta-Ethical Relative Morality may differ. Even though they differ, they are both functioning on the same paradigm. Both are acting on the best information that they have access to at this time.

 

[davidv]

No, he says that your definition wasn’t being argued -

I reposted #5 to show that yes in fact that someone (namely you ) is saying that absolute morals " binding on all persons at all times."

I am using your definitions.

If something is “binding on all persons at all times.” it will not change, It can not change. It is “applicable to all persons at all times” There is no wiggle room. You can not have something that is “for all times” that changes.

Who has objected to this statement?

Objective and Absolute are interrelated. For something to be absolute it has to be objective.

Obviously.

It is impossible to know definitively that we know the objective truth. We need faith to believe that there are Objective and absolute truths, and that we have access to them. Faith is relative. There are many individuals with faith and many faiths. You choose faith. It is an act of will. It depends on what you think and feel - relative.

Substitute “morality” for truth in the above and the same argument hold. Despite your relative apprehension of objective morality, it exists objectively.

We can believe we know Objective truths provisionally. It is an act of faith. We may know something more in the future.

So in practicality we are acting the same as relativists - specifically meta-ethical relativism. Society determines what is best for the society based on societies needs. It’s not merely “if it feels good do it”

You have not demonstrated this to be true. You may speaking about yourself, but not me. I am not acting like the relativist.

Catholic Morality and Meta-Ethical Relative Morality may differ. Even though they differ, they are both functioning on the same paradigm. Both are acting on the best information that they have access to at this time.

And because they differ, they don’t get the same answer to a given moral question. God says the correct one is the one based on objective reality, because He said “I am” and established the objective moral rules.

 

[Betterave]

If a moral truth is absolute it is unchanging, it is - binding on all persons at all times.

Right. Which doesn’t imply that it is equally recognizable to all persons at all times, or that all persons at all times are equally guilty for acting against that moral truth.

For the sake of argument a ridiculous example “Kissing a Frog is immoral” - that means that there is no reason to discuss or explore kissing frogs, we already all we need to know about kissing frogs - it’s immoral - end of story.

No, it doesn’t mean that. If people don’t understand why kissing frogs is wrong, or if they question whether it is wrong, obviously ‘we’ don’t know all we need to know, and we do have good reason to discuss it.

I am saying that we can only know them provisionally, which in practicality functions just like relativism. Specifically Meta-ethical relativism,

• that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.

No, relativism states that the source of our answers to moral questions must be evaluated relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a particular group of people. Absolutism states that properly moral judgments apply universally, they don’t just apply to particular groups. Particular groups have particular traditions, convictions, and practices, and that is fine - but if these do not reflect something universal about the human person as such, then they are not proper to the sphere of morality.

The purpose of which is to have a cohesive and well running society. Societies self interest doesn’t gain by torturing and killing it’s children - it works against the goals of the society.

Yes, it does. But if a society had other goals, these would be immoral goals, and torturing children would still be wrong. Therefore relativism is wrong.

So, I am saying that we can’t know if we received the final word, ( the absolute ) so we function with good faith on the best information we have available, exactly the same thing as Meta-ethical relativism does.

So as I have explained, you are wrong about this. You’ve missed the essential difference between absolutism and relativism.