Moral Laws

[Newbie1452]

As someone who denies that objective moral laws exist this may seem to be an odd question, but here it goes- When you, or anyone for that matter, claims that they have ‘found’ an objective moral law, what exactly is being claimed?

For example-
In physics, I can talk about Faraday’s Law. This law helps me understand the relationship between induced EMF and the rate of change of magnetic flux. A system in which induced EMF is not proportional to the rate of change of flux violates Faraday’s Law.

In economics, I can talk about the Law of Diminishing Returns. This law helps me understand the relationship between fixed resources, variable resources, and output. A system in which adding variable (name removed by moderator)uts to a fixed (name removed by moderator)ut does not produce less output for each new (name removed by moderator)ut violates this law.

In mathematics, I can talk about several things that can be used to make my life easier- they just aren’t called laws, such as the transitive property of equality. A system in which a=b and b=c and a≠c violates the transitive property of equality.

When someone claims something ‘violates’ a moral law, what are claiming exactly?
If we claim that blowing up a school bus full of children is wrong, what are we saying? I would claim that we are saying that we find that action distasteful or despicable, but that clearly is a relative measure of right and wrong rather than an objective one. Clearly the perpetrator was of a different view.

 

[NeedImprovement]

As the posted article illustrates: Deny we have an objective moral law and you deny that God - the objective moral law Giver, exists. Ultimately the objective moral law should “help one understand” , that God exists, that He loves them, and that they have a soul,

THE MORAL LAW

(from homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_morallaw.html )

"The Moral Law is based on the premise that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and there are some things that you “ought” to do, and some things that you “ought not” to do. I think that everyone believes in a moral law. Even those who say they don’t, still get upset when their house is burgled. The question really becomes how to definitively tell that something is right or wrong. When I have discussed this with non-Christian friends, they normally use their own feelings as their measuring stick. When I point out that, for example, an serial killer might feel that what he was doing was right, the next standard put forward is society, or the law. But can society really define what is right? What if two different societies disagree? By a simple logic, it is obvious that they can’t both be right.
Once it can be established that there is a moral law, it follows that there must be a moral law-giver. Without this standard, then when two people disagree about a moral judgement, all you can have is two conflicting opinions, with no way to decide the issue. Yet in reality, two contradicting things cannot both be right. It seems the only way to resolve the dilemma is for there to be a real, objective standard, which the Christian calls “God”.

And when you take away, or ignore, this standard, what you get is a relativistic or morally subjective society, which is what we are moving towards now. I think it is obvious that our society is becoming more and more violent, dishonest, crude, selfish and superficial. If you disagree, read the newspaper. And then go to the library archives and read one from 40 years ago. To illustrate, think about this quote from Peter Kreeft (the statistics are American, but the point is universal):

“A modern Rip Van Winkle falling asleep in 1955 and waking up in 1995 would simply not believe his ears when he heard the statistics of our decay. What moralist, complaining of the 10-percent divorce rate then, foresaw the 50-percent divorce rate now? Who foresaw a 500-percent increase in violent crime and a 5000-percent increase in teenage violent crime? When Black society was being declared beyond repair because of a 30-percent illegitimacy rate, who thought that by 1995 white society would equal it, while the rate would climb to nearly 80-percent among Blacks? Who would have thought even ten years ago that Russian public schools would be showing films about Jesus and American schools would be outlawing them? If the next forty years continue the movement of the last forty, does anyone have the slightest hope for the survival of anything resembling civilization? What would another 5000-percent increase in teenage violent crime mean? Or another tripling of the illegitimacy rate? Or another administration that would be to the Clinton what the Clinton was to the Eisenhower, that would make the Clinton years look like Ozzie and Harriet? Just extend the line, follow the road, and you will see the cliff.”
A worldview that does not have an objective moral standard, one that has “values” instead of “laws”, seems doomed to destruction. To put it another way, and again to quote from Kreeft, “Of course, objective morality is not one among many moral options; it is the very definition of morality. “Subjective morality” is an oxymoron; it is no morality at all; it is a mere game. If I (or we) make rules, I (or we) can change them. If I tie myself up, I am not really bound. And a nonbinding morality is not morality, only some “good ideas”. It has no laws, nothing with teeth in it; only “values”: soft, squooshy things that feel like teddy bears.”
No matter how hard you try, you can’t avoid the reality of a moral law. Our present-day culture is a novel experiment that is trying to prove that you can, but the experiment isn’t working."

 

[WatchingMedia]

I don’t know what religion the original poster is, but for Catholics - moral law and natural law are discussed in your Catechism.

 

[JohnDamian]

As someone who denies that objective moral laws exist this may seem to be an odd question, but here it goes- When you, or anyone for that matter, claims that they have ‘found’ an objective moral law, what exactly is being claimed?

The Catechism defines “The Morality of Human Acts”

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.



There is more on morality in the Catechism, but that is an example

 

[grannymh]

As someone who denies that objective moral laws exist this may seem to be an odd question, but here it goes- When you, or anyone for that matter, claims that they have ‘found’ an objective moral law, what exactly is being claimed?

For example-
In physics, I can talk about Faraday’s Law. This law helps me understand the relationship between induced EMF and the rate of change of magnetic flux. A system in which induced EMF is not proportional to the rate of change of flux violates Faraday’s Law.

In economics, I can talk about the Law of Diminishing Returns. This law helps me understand the relationship between fixed resources, variable resources, and output. A system in which adding variable (name removed by moderator)uts to a fixed (name removed by moderator)ut does not produce less output for each new (name removed by moderator)ut violates this law.

In mathematics, I can talk about several things that can be used to make my life easier- they just aren’t called laws, such as the transitive property of equality. A system in which a=b and b=c and a≠c violates the transitive property of equality.

When someone claims something ‘violates’ a moral law, what are claiming exactly?
If we claim that blowing up a school bus full of children is wrong, what are we saying? I would claim that we are saying that we find that action distasteful or despicable, but that clearly is a relative measure of right and wrong rather than an objective one. Clearly the perpetrator was of a different view.

In my humble opinion, moral law is based on the universal, objective truth - - - The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception to the moment of death.

 

[AntiTheist]

Hi, Newbie. I am of your opinion – as a moral skeptic, I don’t think that there are objective moral laws that exist outside of people’s minds.

Good luck trying to get a straight answer out of anyone. For my part, I am convined that moral judgments – like “that’s immoral” or “that’s moral” – are nothing more than statements of values.

Values – the importance or desire we place on certain things or acts – motivate our actions and “moral” judgments, and they come from the influence of society and biology, mostly.

Obviously, members of a society are going to share in common a great deal of broad values (like, for example, valuing a society where people don’t go around killing and stealing), so within the context of a particular set of values, we can generate more or less “objective” rules of behavior.

But there’s not some sort of objective list of “wrongs” that we can commit. The idea of a “wrong” is imaginary, arising completely in the human mind, and while it may be useful in a social context, as I’ve explained above, it doesn’t correspond to anything outside of our minds.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Newbie. I am of your opinion – as a moral skeptic, I don’t think that there are objective moral laws that exist outside of people’s minds.

Good luck trying to get a straight answer out of anyone. For my part, I am convined that moral judgments – like “that’s immoral” or “that’s moral” – are nothing more than statements of values.

Values – the importance or desire we place on certain things or acts – motivate our actions and “moral” judgments, and they come from the influence of society and biology, mostly.

Obviously, members of a society are going to share in common a great deal of broad values (like, for example, valuing a society where people don’t go around killing and stealing), so within the context of a particular set of values, we can generate more or less “objective” rules of behavior.

But there’s not some sort of objective list of “wrongs” that we can commit. The idea of a “wrong” is imaginary, arising completely in the human mind, and while it may be useful in a social context, as I’ve explained above, it doesn’t correspond to anything outside of our minds.

For the sake of discussion, agreeing with what you said, there seems to me that there has to be a recognizable base for any kind of moral behavior including behavior based on subjective reasoning. The base stays in place. People decide their own actions–evaluating them against that base.

 

[AntiTheist]

For the sake of discussion, agreeing with what you said, there seems to me that there has to be a recognizable base for any kind of moral behavior including behavior based on subjective reasoning. The base stays in place. People decide their own actions–evaluating them against that base.

The “base,” in this case, consists of the values of each person.

Our values motivate our actions so strongly that we don’t even need to consciously think about them most of the time. For example, on the average day, it wouldn’t even occur to me to go around and randomly kill others – it’s not something I have any desire to do and I strongly value a society where people don’t go around killing each other.

I don’t see any reason to think that any kind of “base” exists for my actions outside of my values.

 

[lemondiesel]

all moral laws are subjective

some people just have similar subjective thoughts

 

[grannymh]

The “base,” in this case, consists of the values of each person.

Our values motivate our actions so strongly that we don’t even need to consciously think about them most of the time. For example, on the average day, it wouldn’t even occur to me to go around and randomly kill others – it’s not something I have any desire to do and I strongly value a society where people don’t go around killing each other.

I don’t see any reason to think that any kind of “base” exists for my actions outside of my values.

The base in this case is a person. A person is real existence. Do values get a ticket for driving drunk? Better yet, how many times do values win the lottery? Do you see the difference inherent in the base that I am proposing?

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[DPMartin]

As someone who denies that objective moral laws exist this may seem to be an odd question, but here it goes- When you, or anyone for that matter, claims that they have ‘found’ an objective moral law, what exactly is being claimed?

For example-
In physics, I can talk about Faraday’s Law. This law helps me understand the relationship between induced EMF and the rate of change of magnetic flux. A system in which induced EMF is not proportional to the rate of change of flux violates Faraday’s Law.

In economics, I can talk about the Law of Diminishing Returns. This law helps me understand the relationship between fixed resources, variable resources, and output. A system in which adding variable (name removed by moderator)uts to a fixed (name removed by moderator)ut does not produce less output for each new (name removed by moderator)ut violates this law.

In mathematics, I can talk about several things that can be used to make my life easier- they just aren’t called laws, such as the transitive property of equality. A system in which a=b and b=c and a≠c violates the transitive property of equality.

When someone claims something ‘violates’ a moral law, what are claiming exactly?
If we claim that blowing up a school bus full of children is wrong, what are we saying? I would claim that we are saying that we find that action distasteful or despicable, but that clearly is a relative measure of right and wrong rather than an objective one. Clearly the perpetrator was of a different view.

If there be no agreement between one and another there is no moral law. To agree and to brake the agreement is a matter of morals or ethics, perceived by the ones who agree.

If there be an agreement, then the morals are based on the agreement. If there be no agreement, then there is nothing to base morals or ethics on.

 

[brianwalden]

Newbie, those who think a moral law exists claim that there are objective laws that govern man’s actions just as there are objective laws of mathematics. The difference is that while man can’t break the laws of math or physics, he has free will which he use (or technically abuse) to violate the moral law.

Do you believe that we created the laws of mathematics and logic, that we made them up as a useful tool to describe our world? Or do you believe that these laws really exist and we merely discovered them? I think most moralists would say that such laws are eternal and we found them over time. In the same way someone who believes morals exists believes that everyone has a conscience which is capable of recognizing and responding to the laws of morality, but this conscience must be trained or else we can easily learn to ignore it.

I don’t know why people are posting claiming that morality is subjective as it is irrelevant to your original question about what moralists believe. Plus, it only confuses the issue as it’s a complete contradiction in terms - if morality is subjective then morality doesn’t exist. It’s a good and old discussion, but maybe for a different thread.

 

[grannymh]

Newbie, those who think a moral law exists claim that there are objective laws that govern man’s actions just as there are objective laws of mathematics. The difference is that while man can’t break the laws of math or physics, he has free will which he use (or technically abuse) to violate the moral law.

Do you believe that we created the laws of mathematics and logic, that we made them up as a useful tool to describe our world? Or do you believe that these laws really exist and we merely discovered them? I think most moralists would say that such laws are eternal and we found them over time. In the same way someone who believes morals exists believes that everyone has a conscience which is capable of recognizing and responding to the laws of morality, but this conscience must be trained or else we can easily learn to ignore it.

I don’t know why people are posting claiming that morality is subjective as it is irrelevant to your original question about what moralists believe. Plus, it only confuses the issue as it’s a complete contradiction in terms - if morality is subjective then morality doesn’t exist. It’s a good and old discussion, but maybe for a different thread.

Most posts I have seen will say that morality is subjective because morality depends on people’s interpretation. Then there is the confusion between subjective and objective which will cloud stuff.

 

[AntiTheist]

Plus, it only confuses the issue as it’s a complete contradiction in terms - if morality is subjective then morality doesn’t exist.

This is only a problem of language. “Morality,” defined as an objective set of rules, doesn’t exist. “Morality,” defined as indivial behavior directed by individual values, obviously does exist.

Nothing prevents large groups of people from sharing broad values – as we would clearly expect when large groups are from the same society.

 

[AntiTheist]

The base in this case is a person. A person is real existence. Do values get a ticket for driving drunk? Better yet, how many times do values win the lottery? Do you see the difference inherent in the base that I am proposing?

Your questions are incoherent. I value living in a society where people don’t drive drunk. If enough people agree with me, we can pass laws that will enforce those values.

“Rightness” or “wrongness” doesn’t enter the equation. At all.

 

[Newbie1452]

The base in this case is a person. A person is real existence. Do values get a ticket for driving drunk? Better yet, how many times do values win the lottery? Do you see the difference inherent in the base that I am proposing?

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

People evaluate their actions… against a person? Is this a WWJD sort of thing?

 

[NeedImprovement]

This is only a problem of language. “Morality,” defined as an objective set of rules, doesn’t exist. “Morality,” defined as indivial behavior directed by individual values, obviously does exist.

Nothing prevents large groups of people from sharing broad values – as we would clearly expect when large groups are from the same society.

Your questions are incoherent. I value living in a society where people don’t drive drunk. If enough people agree with me, we can pass laws that will enforce those values…

With the example provided it doesn’t look so implausible, although even within the consensus there would be divergence of opinions which might lean in directions such as- don’t drive at all; don’t drink at all; if you kill someone while driving drunk you should get the death penalty, etc.

But what happens when we look at an example which is more divisive to us all…which tears the fabric of society even more ? I’m thinking of pornography here.

There are laws which allow it - in the name of “freedom” .But even medical professionals will tell you pornography is addictive. And it ruins relationships, families and spreads diseases (yes diseases, because if one researches that subject a bit, one discovers that porno “actors/actresses” get paid more money for having unprotected sex because it is more in demand). Can both sides be right ?

When one claims there is no objective moral law, doesn’t that mean they are simultaneously claiming that there is nothing that exists which is either inherently good or inherently evil or harmful to human beings and/or their nature ?

 

[grannymh]

This is only a problem of language. “Morality,” defined as an objective set of rules, doesn’t exist. “Morality,” defined as indivial behavior directed by individual values, obviously does exist.

Nothing prevents large groups of people from sharing broad values – as we would clearly expect when large groups are from the same society.

In real time, morality is one of those words which has a variety of meanings and usages.

When it comes down to real actions towards real people, moral or immoral actions are based on objective principles which exist independently. The dispute is whether or not these principles are formulated subjectively or objectively. Thus, it normally becomes a dispute over relativism and/or the philiosophy that all reality is material.

 

[grannymh]

Your questions are incoherent. I value living in a society where people don’t drive drunk. If enough people agree with me, we can pass laws that will enforce those values.

“Rightness” or “wrongness” doesn’t enter the equation. At all.

You are correct. You understand the example.

The questions are incoherent because values are not material things. That is why agrreement among people on one side of the street can pass laws with penalties for driving drunk. People on the other side of street can allow drunk driving as long as no one gets hurt. No hurt, no foul. I lived in a town where the only way a stop sign could be put up at a dangerous intersection was when five people were killed there.

The next question is – do you think that a value can become both universal and objective? Obviously, I am assuming that not all reality is material.

 

[grannymh]

People evaluate their actions… against a person? Is this a WWJD sort of thing?

Here there is a slight differenece of direction. People evaluate their actions because of what a person is. Suppose I lose control of my car and hit a dog. If the dog is still alive, I get it to a vet. If it dies, I am sorry. Suppose, I lose control of my car and kill a person. Would you say that killing a person makes a difference? Would driving drunk as the reason for losing control of my car make a difference? Does it make a difference as to what kind of a person I am. Do I have a kind of moral responsibility for my body?

Regarding WWJD. Apparently, I am a lot older than you. When that became popular, I thought it was a tad silly and so ignored it.