I apologize for being ambiguous. But I don’t think you read the article well. If you did, my answer would probably be more clear.
See. This is why I’m certain you didn’t read it well.
Maybe if you re-read the article my comments won’t be so ambiguous?
Sorry. I’m not going to pay $8 to read the article. The snippet you provided does not mention anything at all about a dog giving his life for a stranger. It does mention playing fair, which, I guess, is a good example of animals having a toddler’s sense of morality.
I’ve re-read it. I don’t think I’ve missed something. He acknowledges that it is the act is horrible but then says why it was just. He uses a two tear method - if God had commanded it or if He had not. He spends the majority on yes, He did. Regardless of which way you choose - God did command it or didn’t he justifies the act as “ok” because it must be part of God’s plan. So he is saying roughly paraphrased " Yes, this is a horrible act judged by today’s standards but we must believe that it’s part of God’s larger plan, any injustice we see will be made right by God in the after life"
You simply keep claiming that the values or obligations are “absolute.” You are not explaining why they are. And you seem to be meaning only that “absolute” means the greatest superlative condition, rather than meaning that the idea exists outside of human discourse and behavior. I, for one, have no truck with your claiming that the obligation to be good is our greatest ethic. Indeed it is. I claim only that it does not exist beyond human discourse. If humanity were wiped from the earth, the value would be gone. Furthermore, if humanity were to drop this ethic from thought and discussion, then the value would no longer exist in any objective way. It is not “absolute,” but rather a subjective (albeit nearly universal) ethic.
Sorry, It was me being ambiguous here. I meant the article as an interesting read about animal morality, not as evidence of animal martyrdom. There are others just “google” Dog morality.Sorry. I’m not going to pay $8 to read the article. The snippet you provided does not mention anything at all about a dog giving his life for a stranger. It does mention playing fair, which, I guess, is a good example of animals having a toddler’s sense of morality.
Indeed.
That’s a good point. Do you think they’re doing this because they have a choice, or are they trained to do this?
I read the article and the last part–where God did not command the genocide-would certainly affirm that God opposes it but allows man to sin nonetheless. The question of whether or not it’s just for God to allow man to disobey the morality He created for them is separate from whether or not such objective morality exists at all.
Hairsplitting Doublespeak -
I think both (although I have no evidence) - Soldiers are also trained and their valor is conditional on the individual. Some go above and beyond others don’t.
I think it’s in the same vein - If God says something is immortal (genocide) then suspends the “rule” to serve a higher purpose, the morality of the act is conditional. It’s not absolute.
Other primates obviously lack the rational thought that a human can bring to the table but they do show traits associated with morality (empathy, a sense of fairness, and so on). On one hand they can make choices in their conduct for the sake of harmony, on the other they can’t discuss and agree social standards. I called it a primitive form because it fits many definitions of “morality” reasonably well even though the word is usually defined only in the context of humans.
Exactly. So I would never put soldiers (and dogs) in the same category as saints like Maximilian Kolbe.
Well, I don’t think anyone would argue that we are biologically driven to have “traits” that are moral.
I have read some stories of valor that are on equal footing as Maximilian Kolbe. Laying down your life for another is the ultimate sacrifice. I don’t know how you gradate the level of sacrifice. i.e. “this sacrifice is greater than this one” - Dead is dead. You’ve still chosen their lives over yours.
There doesn’t have to be anything “final” about it. Our sense of the “good” has developed over time. It will continue to develop - we’re not finished yet.
Really? Can you cite these?
Indeed.
Oh, but you can.
No argument with you there. This is exactly what the CC professes when it says that doctrine develops, yet all revelation has been completed in Him who is the Word Made Flesh.There doesn’t have to be anything “final” about it. Our sense of the “good” has developed over time. It will continue to develop - we’re not finished yet.
You can’t know what is in a persons heart. MK might have done what he did out of his training as a friar. The sacrifice is still the same - they still lay down their own life for another - there isn’t any “more” that you can do. They are giving “all”.