Moral Relativism

[inocente]

Is there a basic concept of relativism in human nature? We do look at our own talents relative to the talents of animals, relative to some human standard, relative to time, etc.

There is an intellectual evaluation or judgment involved with morality which only exists in the human species. This means that at some point, a unique species appeared. This species would have to arise from two sole progenitors so that the present uniqueness of morals could be maintained. These sole progenitors would have to be human instantaneously without any contribution from other forms of life.

There’s a divide in how theists see God, hard for me to put into words, but perhaps I can make do with Santa Teresa’s all things pass, God never changes. To me, everything must change simply because it’s a thing, it isn’t God. To others some things can be halfway, staying still forever. No doubt this brings comfort in a world we know we must eventually leave, but to me it dilutes/contaminates our relationship with God for He must be set apart from things, most holy of holy, inexplicable, and the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

Not very good at explaining but if by chance you see what I’m getting at, you’ll find Catholics and Protestants on both sides of this divide. It’s just that the absolutists with their (to me comforting but imaginary) unchanging things have tended to be more vocal.

Neither side is absolutely right (how could we know?) and maybe I’m way off base, but that’s my best shot. (If you’re into poetry, Kate Wolf captured the occasional melancholia on my side of the fence in Across The Great Divide, along with why it’s well worth it in the last verse. (Live version here).)

What is the present uniqueness of morals? It is that in spite of all the different interpretations, good and bad, the object of morality is the unique human being with the unique unified nature of spirit and matter. Even though some rightly say that humans should practice morality toward animals, the human person is the object which acts toward animals and the reverse is impossible.

I’ll counter that you played into my hands (evil laugh ah hah ha). Chairs are a human invention, there is no perfect Goldilocks chair that’s just right for everyone, we can imagine one but never agree. Morality likewise is a human invention from the fact we can’t agree.

Granted that there is a basic concept of relativism in our human nature, then why is moral relativism not the complete answer to living a moral life? This whole thread is full of examples of inappropriate decisions based on moral relativism.

I agree with jon, just wanted to add for fairness there are at least as many wrong decisions based on absolutism.

 

[grannymh]

Maybe I’m just quibbling over semantics here but -

I’m not sure how you differentiate between subjective and objective reasoning.

The main differences between subjective and objective reasoning are one’s perspective and the source of information. We often use the two forms of reasoning (objective and subjective) to form a conclusion or make a decision. I am going to exaggerate these differences regarding the purchase of the chair in the furniture store.

Objective reasoning would have us in the store, tape measure in hand, determining the measurements of the chair. I would sit on the chair. I would also find a sales representative about the height and size of my hubby and ask him to sit in the chair and tell me if he finds it comfortable. If the chair were a recliner, I would be down on my hands and knees checking out the mechanism. Objective reasoning gathers the information from the chair itself. The perspective for our reasoning is that of the external world. I am able to decide, based on what I learned about the chair, to immediately purchase the chair or I can go home and measure the area where I want the chair to go in order to make sure the chair will fit.
Either way, the information is objective. An inch is an inch no matter where it is measured.

Subjective reasoning proceeds from within myself, i.e., from my mind, emotions, memories, knowledge, desires, prejudices, personal history, and so on. There is nothing wrong with this kind of reasoning as long as one knows one is using it.
For example, jury members are asked to consider the facts only. Members of a jury are usually asked specific questions so as to rule out an emotional or prejudicial verdict etc.

Regarding the chair. The subjective reasons I like the chair, beside the objective fact that it will fit in the corner, come from within my being. The color is soothing because it gives me a sense of personal peace. It reminds me of a chair from my childhood which brings back wonderful memories. I consider the advice from friends based on their own experiences. I search my memory bank for all previous information about chairs in general. I evaluate the chair and give it value based on what I believe is important.

One advantage of knowing the difference is that there will be times when one has to go to objective reasoning. Buying a second hand car is an example. It can look great to the eyes, but one better check the motor.

I just see reasoning as the process. The facts being reasoned are subjective or objective. I don’t think it is possible for a person to reason “objectively” since we all bring preconceptions/ world view/ prejudices to the process.

The use of the word facts usually indicates something in existence which is outside of ourselves and which does not depend on our affirmation. We do bring preconceptions/world views/ prejudices to any situation which requires a solution or conclusion. This is exactly why we need to shift into the mode of objective thinking.
For example in making a decision about a medical procedure.

Practically speaking, people do use objective reasoning in everyday life. A speeding ticket is the objective reason for slowing down. A sub zero temperature is an objective reason for deciding between wearing a bathing suit or a warm coat outside even though one has the body which looks good in a bathing suit. Did I warn about exaggerations?

Seeing human life as valuable is a subjective statement coming from a human.

“Seeing human life as valuable is a subjective statement coming from a human.” This actually means that in real life, any living human can change her or his mind so that human life can also be seen as disposable trash when the statement comes from a human.

The inherent truth of our intrinsic value as humans is a subjective statement from a human.

As long, as all humans recognize the inherent truth of our intrinsic value and all agree as to what that actually means in real life situations, I will be happy.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Human Nature **
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

 

[grannymh]

There’s a divide in how theists see God, hard for me to put into words, but perhaps I can make do with Santa Teresa’s all things pass, God never changes. To me, everything must change simply because it’s a thing, it isn’t God. To others some things can be halfway, staying still forever. No doubt this brings comfort in a world we know we must eventually leave, but to me it dilutes/contaminates our relationship with God for He must be set apart from things, most holy of holy, inexplicable, and the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

Not very good at explaining but if by chance you see what I’m getting at, you’ll find Catholics and Protestants on both sides of this divide. It’s just that the absolutists with their (to me comforting but imaginary) unchanging things have tended to be more vocal.

Neither side is absolutely right (how could we know?) and maybe I’m way off base, but that’s my best shot. (If you’re into poetry, Kate Wolf captured the occasional melancholia on my side of the fence in Across The Great Divide, along with why it’s well worth it in the last verse. (Live version here).)

I’ll counter that you played into my hands (evil laugh ah hah ha). Chairs are a human invention, there is no perfect Goldilocks chair that’s just right for everyone, we can imagine one but never agree. Morality likewise is a human invention from the fact we can’t agree.

I agree with jon, just wanted to add for fairness there are at least as many wrong decisions based on absolutism.

I need to leave for a bit.

By the way, chairs are things in space and time. How do they compare with actions from and toward humans which is a realistic description of morality? Does my living room chair decide that my dining room chair is so plain looking it belongs in a garage sale? Then do the two kitchen chairs pick up the dining room chair and place it on the curb which in some neighborhoods is like a garage sale with no money necessary.

Come to think of it – your statement “To me, everything must change simply because it’s a thing, it isn’t God.” leaves out human beings with our unique unification of the spiritual and material worlds. While we are not gods, we are called to share, through knowledge and love, in God’s life.

Note: I do see what you are getting at in the beginning of your post. I have to ponder it for a time. It touches some deep issues regarding theists so I want to be careful as to how I respond. I am a lover of the metaphysical poetry especially that of England. But I appreciate all kinds of poetry.

Blessings,
granny

:snowing: again

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*I don’t think it is possible for a person to reason “objectively” since we all bring preconceptions/ world view/ prejudices to the process. *

Then this statement must also be subjective? What preconceptions/ world view/ prejudices did you bring to the statement?

*The inherent truth of our intrinsic value as humans is a subjective statement from a human. *

If the statement came from the human Jesus, would it still be subjective? What preconceptions/ world view/ prejudices would he have brought to the statement “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 13) which appears to be an affirmation of intrinsic worth?

As a Catholic, do you believe that God does not regard some human beings as having intrinsic worth? If so, on what basis?

 

[grannymh]

Not very good at explaining but if by chance you see what I’m getting at,

After sleeping on it, I believe that knowing the fullness or completeness of human nature is at the base of the issues you are dealing with. I could be wrong, but in any case, I am at the point where I have to defend my basis for morality. In other words what makes the human person worthy of profound respect

A new thread could be devoted to the topic of human nature in itself. But since I now have to defend my statement, I will do it in my own way. Readers may take it or leave it as we said in my old neighborhood. Being who I am, I will describe human nature and its sacredness from the Catholic point of view, contained in its current universal catechism

Starting with the oral history of humanity, a sense of the spiritual, something other than one’s anatomy, has always been included. Some of the folk lore is very creative such as an Alaskan story about how mosquitoes came to be. Some of the mythology, such as the Greek and Roman gods, tried to account for human events. It always intrigued me how these gods mimicked human characteristics.

In the midst of multiple gods or mysterious powers not confined to the limitations of human mortality, there is the tradition of monotheism which was eventually recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, especially Genesis. Jesus Christ is the fullness of Divine Revelation.

According to Catholicism, God did reveal Himself as our Creator to the two first human beings, often referred to as Adam and Eve. Adam was well aware of his own material anatomy. He also knew instinctively that he consisted of something other than physical matter. At square one, humans recognized their own spirituality. Genesis is clear about the crucial difference between humans and animals. When Eve came to be, she was immediately recognizable as having the same human nature as Adam. Thus began the long line of direct descendents.

At the beginning, Adam was established in total friendship with God Who is Pure Spirit. This could happen because Adam’s nature was an unique unification of spirit and matter. Thus we humans are referred to as being made in the Image of God. This does not mean that the created Adam was equal to God the Creator. Adam could remain in this friendship only by his free submission to God. Adam, being dependent on God, was subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of his freedom.

Morality was not a down the road invention of humans. It is God Who determined the original moral norms for the first living person based on a complete understanding of what it is to be human. As suggested above, what it means to be human should be a topic for another thread.

Nonetheless, it is obvious that Adam, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart. Abusing his freedom, he disobeyed God’s command which became original sin. In a real sense, our moral or immoral actions, are similar because today, moral norms govern the ways in which we use our freedom.

While it would be off topic to go into the different results of the first disobedience in which the first human scorned his Creator, it is important to understand what happened to human nature and why it is still worthy of profound respect.

Catholicism makes an important point that human nature was not destroyed or totally disabled by the first sin. The human nature which we inherited from Adam and Eve is essentially the same as Adam’s before he freely chose to break his friendship with God.
The difference is that our human nature shows the wounds of that sin; thus personal sinning has continued.

Today, the human person is worthy of profound respect because our human nature, in itself, unites the material and spiritual worlds. Each human being is capable, because of his nature, to share, through knowledge and love, in God’s life. This spiritual relationship makes our species peerless. We are a marvelous person and not a thing.

We are worthy of profound respect because our dignity as a person resides in the fact that we are made in the Image of God.

Blessings,
granny

John 3:16-17

 

[inocente]

A new thread could be devoted to the topic of human nature in itself. But since I now have to defend my statement, I will do it in my own way. Readers may take it or leave it as we said in my old neighborhood. Being who I am, I will describe human nature and its sacredness from the Catholic point of view, contained in its current universal catechism

Sorry, didn’t expect you to defend your view . Rather I was asking absolutists to understand and respect an alternative way to see God and our relationship with Him.

But since your clear post sets out what I take is the authentic Catholic teaching, it would be interesting to hear how other Catholics respond. As I’m not bound in any way to that position, the story of Adam and Eve raises many questions. Is the development of monotheism really unique to Israel? Were the early Israelites really monotheists, when the existence of other gods doesn’t appear to be denied in their writings? How does the idea of the LORD being physically present in the Garden square with our conception of Christ and of God the Father? (Did Adam need faith in our sense of the word?) Is spirituality necessarily immaterial, and is God immaterial (in the same or a different sense)? Is Adam’s relationship with the LORD really friendship when it depends on submission? (Are we seeing this the same as the writer?) Is the LORD’s command a moral imperative, when moral imperatives probably don’t make any sense to Adam before he eats the fruit from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”? (Can a healthy rational person exist who can’t make moral decisions?)

Loads of questions and no doubt loads of answers, but the alternative is to just be content with the core truths, most importantly (for me) that there is but one humanity and none of us are perfect. Part of that truth, I’d tentatively suggest, is the admission that while every generation and every culture probably thinks it has hit on the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything (and maybe us sophisticated twenty-first century types actually have ), neither the ancient writer nor we really have much of a clue. Whichever way we got here none of us absolutely knows more than diddly-squat about the human condition.

We have two different ways of seeing humanity and humility. To rephrase (if it doesn’t get up anyone’s nose, or perhaps because it does ), different strokes for different folks.

 

[jonfawkes]

The main differences between subjective and objective reasoning are one’s perspective and the source of information. We often use the two forms of reasoning (objective and subjective) to form a conclusion or make a decision. I am going to exaggerate these differences regarding the purchase of the chair in the furniture store.

Objective reasoning would have us in the store, tape measure in hand, determining the measurements of the chair. I would sit on the chair. I would also find a sales representative about the height and size of my hubby and ask him to sit in the chair and tell me if he finds it comfortable. If the chair were a recliner, I would be down on my hands and knees checking out the mechanism. Objective reasoning gathers the information from the chair itself. The perspective for our reasoning is that of the external world. I am able to decide, based on what I learned about the chair, to immediately purchase the chair or I can go home and measure the area where I want the chair to go in order to make sure the chair will fit.
Either way, the information is objective. An inch is an inch no matter where it is measured.

Subjective reasoning proceeds from within myself, i.e., from my mind, emotions, memories, knowledge, desires, prejudices, personal history, and so on. There is nothing wrong with this kind of reasoning as long as one knows one is using it.
For example, jury members are asked to consider the facts only. Members of a jury are usually asked specific questions so as to rule out an emotional or prejudicial verdict etc.

Regarding the chair. The subjective reasons I like the chair, beside the objective fact that it will fit in the corner, come from within my being. The color is soothing because it gives me a sense of personal peace. It reminds me of a chair from my childhood which brings back wonderful memories. I consider the advice from friends based on their own experiences. I search my memory bank for all previous information about chairs in general. I evaluate the chair and give it value based on what I believe is important.

One advantage of knowing the difference is that there will be times when one has to go to objective reasoning. Buying a second hand car is an example. It can look great to the eyes, but one better check the motor.

The use of the word facts usually indicates something in existence which is outside of ourselves and which does not depend on our affirmation. We do bring preconceptions/world views/ prejudices to any situation which requires a solution or conclusion. This is exactly why we need to shift into the mode of objective thinking.
For example in making a decision about a medical procedure.

Practically speaking, people do use objective reasoning in everyday life. A speeding ticket is the objective reason for slowing down. A sub zero temperature is an objective reason for deciding between wearing a bathing suit or a warm coat outside even though one has the body which looks good in a bathing suit. Did I warn about exaggerations?

“Seeing human life as valuable is a subjective statement coming from a human.” This actually means that in real life, any living human can change her or his mind so that human life can also be seen as disposable trash when the statement comes from a human.

As long, as all humans recognize the inherent truth of our intrinsic value and all agree as to what that actually means in real life situations, I will be happy.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Human Nature **
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

I still think you are mixing the two - taking measurements is objective but what you do with the measurements is subjective.

The sales rep isn’t close to objective - his opinion is relative to his person and has no bearing on what your husband will feel about it.

I read your follow up defense / statement of belief - There are things that don’t ring true to me but they don’t have to because it is a statement of faith. I think your reasoning follows but it is a relative position, one based on your understanding and faith. There are no objective facts in the statement. Just statements of faith. Which is good as another reason to base your morality but still relative.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

I don’t think it is possible for a person to reason “objectively” since we all bring preconceptions/ world view/ prejudices to the process.

Then this statement must also be subjective? What preconceptions/ world view/ prejudices did you bring to the statement?

Yep, I bring a whole host of them.

*The inherent truth of our intrinsic value as humans is a subjective statement from a human. *

If the statement came from the human Jesus, would it still be subjective? What preconceptions/ world view/ prejudices would he have brought to the statement “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 13) which appears to be an affirmation of intrinsic worth?

As a Catholic, do you believe that God does not regard some human beings as having intrinsic worth? If so, on what basis?

Yep, still subjective. Being fully human (as well as fully God) he’s subject to our prejudices “It’s good to be a human because I am a human”

“As a catholic” is a subjective view. “As a catholic” differentiates me from other people that are non-Catholics. I can believe it but it doesn’t make it an objective fact.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, didn’t expect you to defend your view . Rather I was asking absolutists to understand and respect an alternative way to see God and our relationship with Him.

Personally, we all should recognize that humans can sincerely seek to know God in ways which may be called an alternative to the Christian Gospel. The operative words are sincerely seek because obviously humans live in a variety of situations.

But since your clear post sets out what I take is the authentic Catholic teaching, it would be interesting to hear how other Catholics respond. As I’m not bound in any way to that position, the story of Adam and Eve raises many questions. Is the development of monotheism really unique to Israel?

I doubt that the development of monotheism is unique to one religion. What we normally know comes from the history of major religions. It is quite possible that many of Adam’s descendants kept their belief in one God. I am always optimistic about missing historical data.

Were the early Israelites really monotheists, when the existence of other gods doesn’t appear to be denied in their writings?

I know that there are historical questions about this. Personally, I skip to the main point that God is one being but at the same time God is three Persons, the Blessed Trinity. I’m on my knees begging you not to ask the obvious question–how come? I can see the three Persons with one nature reflected in the Scriptures but the actual “how” I take on faith.

How does the idea of the LORD being physically present in the Garden square with our conception of Christ and of God the Father?

Frankly, I have never thought of God being physically present. I know that Scripture depicts Him as present. Sorry, but for me, how God was present is not as important as the fact that He was present.

(Did Adam need faith in our sense of the word?)

The Catechism (CCC 397) refers to Adam’s “trust in his Creator”. See if this explanation works. To trust in his Creator, implies that Adam had to rely on God’s word. Adam was not equal to God; thus he could not have understood God completely. He had to have faith or trust just like we need.

Is spirituality necessarily immaterial, and is God immaterial (in the same or a different sense)?

To start with God. God is Pure Spirit without the limitations of physical materialism. Thus, our language equates spiritual with immaterial which is reasonable.

As I said in previous post. Starting with the oral history of humanity, a sense of the spiritual, something other than one’s anatomy, has always been included. Many of Adam’s descendants retained what Adam had taught them about his experiences with God. Others did not, but yet that intuition about the spiritual remained within them. Remember that human nature was only wounded as a result of Adam’s original sin. It never lost the spiritual element. God, Who created this spiritual element known as spiritual soul, is able to touch this soul with His love. Thus, each human person, no matter when or where they lived, is called to share in the life of God for eternity. And we, because of our spiritual soul, are able to reach out to God even though we may not know or completely understand all the details.

I have this feeling that this answer wanders around your question. Please help me out if I missed the point of your valid question.

Is Adam’s relationship with the LORD really friendship when it depends on submission? (Are we seeing this the same as the writer?)

When it comes to major teachings in Scripture, I rely on the Catholic Church to recognize the Divine Revelation from what the writer wrote.

Regarding the issue of submission. Friendship between humans does involve various forms of submission. Being married, you probably could produce a long list.
Considering that we are speaking about the friendship between the Creator and the created, submission would involve something more than putting the cap back on the toothpaste. Submission would be the complete agreement with God’s conditions for eternal friendship.

Right now I am in submission to the clock which pointedly points out that I have to be somewhere else. I will continue later. God willing and the creek don’t rise.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1 :1

 

[grannymh]

We have two different ways of seeing humanity and humility. To rephrase (if it doesn’t get up anyone’s nose, or perhaps because it does ), different strokes for different folks.

After giving the clock a piece of mind for reminding me of my commitments, I have to respectfully point out that “ways of seeing” refer to actions or decisions. Humanity itself doesn’t change according to different strokes for different folks. Unless the strokes are delivered by a lethal baseball bat.

Blessings,
granny wearing protective headgear.
:winter:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*“As a catholic” is a subjective view. “As a catholic” differentiates me from other people that are non-Catholics. I can believe it but it doesn’t make it an objective fact. *

Looks like you are a tad absolutist about relativism! Even the teachings of Jesus are subjective and without objective foundation, apparently? Please say it ain’t so.

Have you read Pope Benedict on the dictatorship of moral relativism?

“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one’s own ego and one’s own desires… The church needs to withstand the tides of trends and the latest novelties… We must become mature in this adult faith, we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith.”

Pope Benedict XVI

 

[Betterave]

P1) is a **** premise - Moral means right or wrong - determined by whom then? Defined by whom?

LOL! Determined and defined by competent language users!

To remind you:
P1) Moral means right or wrong. Moral does not mean deemed right or wrong by some society. (True by definition.)

Now your problem (and inocente’s) seems to be the same as ever: You don’t understand the meanings of the terms you are using. Here’s another argument for you to consider:

P1) You can’t make a meaningful argument without using meaningful statements/propositions. You can’t have a meaningful proposition without using meaningful terms. And you can’t use meaningful terms without knowing the meanings of terms, i.e., without being a competent language user.

P2) You and inocente and sidbrown seem clearly not to understand the meanings of the terms you are using here (‘moral’, ‘relativism’, ‘absolutism’).

C) That is why y’all are unable to construct intelligent propositions and arguments on these subjects.

 

[Betterave]

LOL
This is vacuous and has no meaning unless you can tell me what is right and what is wrong in a few simple cases.
Is slavery morally wrong.
Is it morally wrong to burn a heretic at the stake.
Is it morally wrong to torture someone to extract a confession.

If you cannot answer these simple questions, and decide what is right and what is wrong, then the definition you have given is meaningless.

What makes you think these are simple questions? (…which have simple answers(?)) I would call that a false assumption.

Perhaps you are under the impression that moral absolutism entails the claim that there are no difficult moral questions or that there is a simple answer to every moral question? If so, you are mistaken - it doesn’t.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Betterave
*
Perhaps you are under the impression that moral absolutism entails the claim that there are no difficult moral questions or that there is a simple answer to every moral question? If so, you are mistaken - it doesn’t. *

Exactly. Some would say it was a difficult decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman decided to take the relativist position, which was that the lives of American soldiers would be saved. Pope Pius XII affirmed the wrongness of Truman’s decision. One does not deliberately target innocent people and whole cities for destruction any more than one targets a child for sadistic cruelty or sexual abuse. Under absolutely no conditions is such behavior to be excused as rightful

 

[jonfawkes]

LOL! Determined and defined by competent language users!

To remind you:
P1) Moral means right or wrong. Moral does not mean deemed right or wrong by some society. (True by definition.)

Now your problem (and inocente’s) seems to be the same as ever: You don’t understand the meanings of the terms you are using. Here’s another argument for you to consider:

P1) You can’t make a meaningful argument without using meaningful statements/propositions. You can’t have a meaningful proposition without using meaningful terms. And you can’t use meaningful terms without knowing the meanings of terms, i.e., without being a competent language user.

P2) You and inocente and sidbrown seem clearly not to understand the meanings of the terms you are using here (‘moral’, ‘relativism’, ‘absolutism’).

C) That is why y’all are unable to construct intelligent propositions and arguments on these subjects.

Right and Wrong are qualitative statements. They have to be defined by someone for them to have any meaning. Soooooo someone is defining them - who?

 

[tonyrey]

So what about New Orleans, Indian Ocean tsunami, Haiti, Mount Vesuvius and other natural disasters. I don’t remember any person taking credit for those disasters and hardships. They are usually referred to as “acts of god”

Regardless of my Western lifestyle the **vast majority **of people on this earth are not afflicted by natural disasters - unless you can produce statistics to the contrary…

 

[jonfawkes]

Regardless of my Western lifestyle the **vast majority **of people on this earth are not afflicted by natural disasters - unless you can produce statistics to the contrary…

Others are affected by poverty, disease, war, famine etc - point being, life isn’t a picnic for everyone Pollyanna.

 

[tonyrey]

Sure they are - if you have an opportunity, you can take it or not, you can see it as an opportunity or as a problem - it is subjective, relative to the individual.

The fact remains that you have opportunities whether you recognise them or not.

There are persons who have very few opportunities in life but that is because others have abused their opportunities…

 

[grannymh]

Right and Wrong are qualitative statements. They have to be defined by someone for them to have any meaning. Soooooo someone is defining them - who?

Please sit down. I agree with you. But I am not quite sure why. Right or wrong usually describes an action or decision by a person.

 

[grannymh]

Is the LORD’s command a moral imperative, when moral imperatives probably don’t make any sense to Adam before he eats the fruit from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”? (Can a healthy rational person exist who can’t make moral decisions?)

First, Adam knew right from wrong because he knew what he as the created one needed to do to remain in God’s friendship. The figurative language regarding eating fruit refers to the deliberate choice and action of Adam to scorn his Creator and prefer himself to God. He made an informed choice against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. (CCC 396-398)

As for a moral imperative, is that a fancy way of saying that the consequences of turning one’s back on our Creater are dang serious?

Regarding the question – Can a healthy rational person exist who can’t make moral decisions? I would not dare judge anyone.

Loads of questions and no doubt loads of answers, but the alternative is to just be content with the core truths, most importantly (for me) that there is but one humanity and none of us are perfect.

I agree with you that there is but one humanity and none of us are perfect but most of us are definitely in the process. :hug1:

May I suggest that there is the core truth regarding our purpose in life and in death. That truth is that we are meant to reside in peace and love forever with our Creator. The first human knew that and decided against it. Fortunately, God did not abandon us.

Part of that truth, I’d tentatively suggest, is the admission that while every generation and every culture probably thinks it has hit on the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything (and maybe us sophisticated twenty-first century types actually have ), neither the ancient writer nor we really have much of a clue. Whichever way we got here none of us absolutely knows more than diddly-squat about the human condition.

Regarding knowledge about the material/physical universe, I agree with you. Regarding the human condition, Catholicism is spot on.

We have two different ways of seeing humanity and humility. To rephrase (if it doesn’t get up anyone’s nose, or perhaps because it does ), different strokes for different folks.

I did respond to this earlier. Here’s another thought. Folks can change their strokes.

Blessings,
granny

:winter: