J
- Status
B
Betterave
Guest
There have been an awful lot of very bad, very confused arguments on this thread, and this one is far from being the worst, but here is where it goes wrong:
First, please note that not all statements having the form of an argument are really arguments. For example, “oranges are orange, therefore lemons are yellow” is not really an argument. It’s the kind of statement that might be used to illustrate the form of an argument, but it’s not actually an argument.
Second, consider the example you offered about summer sausage. It’s a fine argument, which could be persuasive, as you say, but it has nothing to do with morality. Framed as a moral argument, where morality is taken to be derived from preferences, it would read as follows:
(1) We prefer not to eat fattening foods.
(2) Summer sausage is a fattening food.
(3) Therefore, it is immoral for us to eat summer sausage.
And this is simply a non sequitur. Of course one might try to redefine the term ‘immoral’ so as to make it follow, but that would just be to commit another fallacy called a definitional dodge.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Sly:I have a very hard time accepting this type of reasoning for some reason.
If I say that my shirt is green; If I say that I can fly; If I say that I am pro basketball player;If I see in my mind’s eye a square circle, If I say that 2 + 2 = 5, and I make these things true in my own mind, then I think they are true in reality as well.
I think on some level, our dreams and our imagination is more real than what we perceive as reality. That is why we can imagine all sorts of things. We can invent whole universes and possible worlds in our minds. Our consciousness is not evolved enough to be fully immersed in this wider version of the “real,” but when we have mystical and dream like experiences we start to grasp at it.
So in a way if I want my ‘blue’ shirt to be green, I can simply say that it is so, and so it is.
I see truth as multifaceted. I believe that all propositions of every variety are true. I just can’t accept the law of non-contradiction. I believe in a sense TRUTH is infinite. That all things, all thoughts, all perceptions, and conceptions, are a truth on to themselves. there are no false statements, and there are no wrong opinions.
I think we are all gods in a sense in that collectively us creatures of consciousness construct the universe and reality we perceive. At this point in our history we have agreed collectively that man is worthy of great respect and dignity. I don’t think it had to be the case, and as we know, some people, perhaps Hitler,etc, still disagree.
I see morality as socially constructed, but perhaps on a sort of path of evolving toward some form of ultimate fulfillment. many of us see abortion and other murder as ‘wrong’, and I think it is wrong because we have made it so, not because of some ‘objective truth.’ It is simply the way things are now, that murder and abortion seem to be great evils, but in the future, perhaps at a time when we no longer live in physical bodies, but become more spirit like, murder will not be possible so it will no longer be relevant.
all morality and truth appear to be in fluid as man’s collective conscience evolves through a potentially infinite variety of transitions, through eternity, and perhaps towards an ultimate goal, but perhaps that goal must be discovered and even created and invented by ourselves.
–
Now I wrote this (above) fairly quickly just now, and I kind of jumped around, but this is my understanding of truth and morality. this is what makes the most sense to me right now. I’m open to getting back to Catholic ideas, but absolutism in the traditional sense really really bothers me for some reason.
Yep! I think we should release all prisoners and all of the interred insane in joyous anticipation!
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
No slippery slope here! We’re not concerned with human fallibility but with absolute moral principles. Are you suggesting that sometimes we should ignore the dictates of our conscience? If so when and why?Ah, with you, a slippery slope.
How do I know which is the lesser? Do you tell me, do I have a rule book, or am I OK to use my conscience without ever being aware of that rule? Or do I go with least harm instead of least evil? What is evil anyway? Stop me, I’m melting.
We’re into Trolley Problem territory. It’s only Wikipedia, but look at the cognitive science and neuroethics sections. We may have a moral grammar inside our heads, not a set of rules but the requirements to make decisions, and we may have “a strong emotional response as well as a reasoned cognitive response that tend to oppose one another”.
Where did I hear that before? They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. - Rom 2:15 NIV
E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
Ah, the cult of conscience. The glib answer is “when your conscience is wrong” of course, but how do you know that?
As a Catholic, the answer is simple: When an action or inaction is not judged immoral by the Church, you are free to let your conscience guide you in the particular instances of your life. When an action or inaction is judged immoral by the Church and your conscience disagrees, you are wrong.
Hope this helps.
J
jdwood983
Guest
Just because you say something is B (when everyone else says it is A), doesn’t mean it actually is B. I would think that this would be the position held by a delusional person, but I’m no psychologist/psychiatrist.
But the Law of Non-Contradiction must be true, otherwise nothing would make sense! “A is not B” and “A is B” can’t both be true at the same time, only one of those can be true while the other is not.
B
Betterave
Guest
So one would expect you to know in part, and to be able to claim in part, that your religion is better than another.
Surely if love is more than a meaningless wishy-washy abstraction it does NOT fight against sets of rules, but rather informs them. Knowledge is a gift of the Spirit. Knowledge as such will certainly not pass away - at least I hope you don’t believe that??
B
Betterave
Guest
I’m finding that your contributions to this thread are really confused. Moral absolutism is not the claim that there are no situations where it is not clear to us how we should apply our absolute moral principles. And moral scepticism is not the same as moral relativism. Your asking “but how do I know…?” questions might be appropriate for a defense of moral scepticism, but how are they supposed to illuminate the issue of moral relativism? “The art of casuistry can be a difficult one; therefore, moral relativism is at least a little bit true” is a non sequitur, isn’t it? If not, please explain how not.How do I know which is the lesser? Do you tell me, do I have a rule book, or am I OK to use my conscience without ever being aware of that rule? Or do I go with least harm instead of least evil? What is evil anyway? Stop me, I’m melting.
H
hatsoff
Guest
So my argument is not quite the worst. I’m unaccustomed to such unwavering confidence! ; )
I suppose not, but what does that have to do with this thread? Are you suggesting that my summer sausage argument is not, in fact, an argument? You call it an argument later in your post. Or are you suggesting that Kreeft was not referring to actual arguments when he talks about moral arguments? Or something else… ?
I agree! That was my point, of course. We can go structure arguments about fatty foods just like we can structure arguments about morality. Unless you think that ``we shouldn’t eat fattening foods’’ is a universal principle, then clearly there must be something wrong with Kreeft’s idea that this kind of structuring requires us to appeal to such universal principles.
I don’t know what you’re getting at, here. Why would we want to frame my summer sausage argument as a moral argument?
I
inocente
Guest
I think these absolutist/relativist labels are too broad to serve much purpose. This particular “relativist” has looked at various formal moral systems such as the Aquinas version of natural law philosophy, but finds no great reason to prefer or even adhere to any of them. Or, to put it another way, I’m mainly happy with CCC 1776-1794 (on conscience) but would, for example, change “reason and the divine law” to read “reason and compassion” because I know of no universally acclaimed method of divining such a law. Hope that helps.
I’m not sure it’s possible to bend conscience outside of being manipulated. We could label someone who reaches different moral conclusions as not acting in good faith, but it seems a little judgmental.
The morality of the OT and NT differ. As truth cannot contradict truth, why not simply say that our morality and relationship with God changes, and God is fine with that, rather than digging a hole by trying to explain it in terms of absolutes?
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. – Matthew 5:38-39 NIV
Is Exodus absolutely right for all time, or is it Matthew, or might we find some deeper message along the lines of Santa Teresa de Ávila’s “All things pass; God never changes”?
Are there any nice places with moral absolute rulers? I know where you can get cheap tickets to the Islamic Republic of Iran but that may not fit the bill (love to visit though – always wanted to drive along that part of the Silk Routes).
I
inocente
Guest
I guess occasions could arise where those who believe in moral absolutes find them at odds with their conscience (post #66 may or may not apply). But no, I think we all do what Paul says we do (Rom 2:15) and then let our conscience be our guide. Wouldn’t it be a sin to do otherwise?
F
fhansen
Guest
The CC teaches it’s wrong to go against our conscience. She simultaneously tells us what a properly formed conscience consists of.
I
inocente
Guest
One might make that assumption, but not this one. All the evidence is that no two people think exactly alike. Yes God’s on my side, but only because He’s on everyone’s side.
If you mean that sharing experience is a good thing then agreed. For example, giving a beggar money for food may sound like a good idea, but if he’s an alcoholic, buys booze instead, and dies of alcoholic poisoning then experience says it would have been better to buy the food and watch him eat it.
But Paul doesn’t provide a get-out clause to “where there is knowledge, it will pass away”. Suppose one hundred years from now everyone looks back on us in shame for ever thinking it was moral to eat the flesh of other creatures. Would either we or they be eternally and absolutely off-base, or is it a Romans 14 thing, where both are relatively OK?
The OP says “that because we have a structure for moral arguments we require a higher level for morality (that is, we require an absolute morality)”. I’m asking where is this fountain of absolute morality that we may all drink its pure water. All us Baptists, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. It’s not written on our hearts (only the requirements of the law are written there). It’s not on google maps or in the stars or in any science book. Philosophers disagree even on the principles. It isn’t in any holy book either unless we say one is more holy than another. Is it writ large somewhere for all who have eyes to see except we first need special glasses? Too right I’m confused.
Labels like relativism, and even absolutism, are too broad to be used as anything other than stereotypes. I have sympathy for JPII and Benedict arguing against those who ignore the traditions of our societies and are “swept along by every wind of teaching” into social experiments without stopping to think about long-term consequences. But I also agree with Benedict that there is a living scripture and a living God, and so don’t get those folk who want to freeze everything in amber. God gave us a conscience and Christ taught us how to use it well. What purpose is then served by claiming that one set, and only one set, of abstractions trounces all others for all people for all time? Go on dude, help me out.
M
mark_a
Guest
This post says it all.
I
inocente
Guest
How?
CCC 1790 - A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.
E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
God is the Truth and the Way. God did not change. Therefore, the Truth and the Way did not change. Maybe the problem is a faulty understanding of God and His morality.
If you mean “stone a woman to death for adultery” &c., then you have the wrong idea of moral principles. The principle here is not “stone women to death for particular transgressions” but rather “adultery is wrong.” Absolutism is the premise that there are unwavering moral principles, not unwavering opinions on how far those principles extend.
E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
Because, as the rest of the Catechism makes clear:How?
CCC 1790 - A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.
1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
Your conscience can be wrong. To be able to trust your conscience, then, you must form it well in accordance with divine law. Conscience is not a substitute for divine law. Conscience must have divine law at its core to be trustworthy!
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
Remember, you must always obey the certain judgment of your conscience. Note the qualifier: certain. It seems to me like that qualifies the statement to read that you must have a well-formed conscience.
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.
1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
What about when the Church is flat out wrong - like Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex used to justify slavery. If you lived at the time and your conscience told you to oppose slavery you would be going against Portugal and against these papal bulls. The Bulls were consistent with the time but hardly universal.
M
mark_a
Guest
Because it’s really an authority question.How?
Let’s not forget that the conscience must be properly formed.
- Status