Moral Relativism

[jonfawkes]

Huh.

How do you respond to this: trade routes from China to the Philippines.

It was the nomadic desert tribal culture which devalued women. And it was Christianity which elevated us.

Is there a text from the time of the sack of Constantinople that influenced a major political Western ideology today? Source, please!

The spice trade didn’t reach the Philippines until the 16th century. You were talking about the 5th.

Both cultures were desert cultures when the each of the respective texts were written. One didn’t devalue women. They both had the same view. Subordinate to their Husbands.

All our current policy in the middle east is a result of the rise and fall of the Ottoman empire, a major event of that is the fall of Constantinople.

 

[PRmerger]

The spice trade didn’t reach the Philippines until the 16th century.

Source for this, please?

Incidentally, it need not be a “spice trade” route that existed between China and the Philippines. Any seafaring route that existed between the 2 cultures would prove my point.

 

[PRmerger]

Both cultures were desert cultures when the each of the respective texts were written. One didn’t devalue women. They both had the same view.

Indeed.

And then Christianity changed all of that. Thanks be to God!

All our current policy in the middle east is a result of the rise and fall of the Ottoman empire, a major event of that is the fall of Constantinople.

Please provide a text written during the period of the Ottoman empire that has influenced the West’s “current policy in the Middle East.”

 

[inocente]

Your bluff was called.

You requested I start a thread as my questions were off topic.

I did as requested, here.

There is no reason the questions can’t be answered, inocente.

You professed that not all that’s written in Scripture is theopneustos. Yet you quote Scripture quite readily here on the CAFs.

I’d like to know, when you quote Scripture verses, are those the ones you consider theopneustos? If so, how do you know?

Only PRmerger need read this post, everyone else can pass on by (I’d have PM’d it except for feeling the need for a public record).

I asked you to stay on-topic instead of repeatedly asking me the same off-topic questions. You started your thread, so that’s good. What’s not so hot is that even after you acknowledge your repeated questions to me are off-topic, you still repeat the same off-topic question again even in the same post!

As I already said, I posted on your thread, although it would have been useful if you’d thought to PM me the title and OP for agreement first. At any rate more productive than you trawling through my posts to other people on other threads back to last summer in order to repeatedly quote me selectively and unnecessarily (still can’t believe you spent your time doing that ). Never mind, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It’s a great honor to have a thread named after me and as promised I’ll look in after a week, but you really surprised me by the one-sided wording and by only inviting non-Catholics. Doesn’t seem much in it for me unless, hopefully, some Catholics post and there’s an open discussion. I’ve 11 hectares of orchard to get round before the almonds start blossoming, and in any event joined CAF for discussion, not to stroke my own or anyone else’s ego.

Anyway, one last time, please stop repeating your off-topic questions here. Perhaps you could pray a while about whether either of us needs this hassle in our lives. If you want to reply to this then please PM me or post on your new thread, but for pity’s sake stop repeating your off-topic questions here.

 

[inocente]

Actually I don’t understand what you are saying here. How do you observe that other persons and minds objectively exist by observation?

I’m dumb enough that if I observe the effect of someone punching me repeatedly on the nose then I observe others must exist.

*I don’t think you realize that the goal here is NOT to prove that Artificial Contraception is objectively moral. Rather, the only thing I am concerned in proving is that there is an objective morality. What this objective morality might be is actually different question.

The idea of objective morals are essential for a Mono-Theistic christian God. But there is no requirement to defend that this Objective Morality as being specific to something. What this objective morality in fact is comes from a different argument.

So I think you might have confused the two?*

That there are Christians around who don’t believe in moral absolutes may be such a novel idea that you’ll need to sit in a darkened room for a while to understand our difference.

It is severely minimalist, a punch on the nose minimalism. I believe we are judged by how well we form and use our conscience, and those are the only criteria needed.

In the Sermon on the Mount Christ says He came to fulfill the Law. Before that He gives blessings which really should keep their shock value to us, where the kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor in spirit and the meek inherit the Earth, where everything is reversed from the usual way of thinking. God’s ways are not our ways.

Then after He says “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ [term of contempt] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” – Matt 5:21-22 NIV.

Every time we think such thoughts they are recorded on our soul, they make us who we become. Every time we remember a brother or sister and leave aside our alter gift to first be reconciled with them, it changes our soul. “Everything that does not come from faith is sin” - the Law and the kingdom of heaven start within us.

It’s a double-edged sword and no way means we’re free agents to pick ’n’ mix whatever feels good. Doing that is no better than mindlessly following orders, since it’s just following our own self-image. We must also obviously learn from each other and from tradition to form our conscience and to use it well.

Morals are objective in the sense that they exist as facts within our dealings with each other but the real worth, the riches in heaven, comes not from any mystical theories of absolutes but from how we relate to each other and to God.

Did that answer your question? If so you may see now how I can rest relatively easy.

 

[tonyrey]

Moral relativism lives!

Your failure to answer the following questions hardly supports your proclamation!

             *

Then you agree that there is an objective distinction between good and evil? My answer: “sometimes.”

Please give one example of a moral situation when there is not an objective distinction between good and evil.

Do you believe hope, love and courage should be promoted in society and encouraged in every child’s education - or not?

Nearly always, yes.

What are the exceptions?

It may be easy and life is often problematical but it remains an absolute truth that you should always do what you are convinced is right. I’m sure you would never deliberately disregard that principle and continue to have a clear conscience…

Well, it is entirely true that I sometimes agree with you. But as to absolute claims about what “should” be done when some people feel certain ways?

It is not a question of feeling but reasoning.

And if you are stating that I can decide what is right in that case, then, well, aren’t we back to square one? You aren’t stating a moral standard; you are only stating a process claim (an action).

I am stating an absolute principle for any** reasonable** person.

Like, “When you see the + sign, you should add the numbers together.” well, yeah, definitionally that is true! But it is not an absolute.

It is an absolute for any reasonable person.

It is an absolute principle that we should be reasonable. If you reject that there is no point in continuing this discussion…

(You have given the impression that you don’t believe in being reasonable… )

 

[PRmerger]

Only PRmerger need read this post, everyone else can pass on by (I’d have PM’d it except for feeling the need for a public record).

I asked you to stay on-topic instead of repeatedly asking me the same off-topic questions. You started your thread, so that’s good. What’s not so hot is that even after you acknowledge your repeated questions to me are off-topic, you still repeat the same off-topic question again even in the same post!

As I already said, I posted on your thread, although it would have been useful if you’d thought to PM me the title and OP for agreement first. At any rate more productive than you trawling through my posts to other people on other threads back to last summer in order to repeatedly quote me selectively and unnecessarily (still can’t believe you spent your time doing that ). Never mind, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It’s a great honor to have a thread named after me and as promised I’ll look in after a week, but you really surprised me by the one-sided wording and by only inviting non-Catholics. Doesn’t seem much in it for me unless, hopefully, some Catholics post and there’s an open discussion. I’ve 11 hectares of orchard to get round before the almonds start blossoming, and in any event joined CAF for discussion, not to stroke my own or anyone else’s ego.

Anyway, one last time, please stop repeating your off-topic questions here. Perhaps you could pray a while about whether either of us needs this hassle in our lives. If you want to reply to this then please PM me or post on your new thread, but for pity’s sake stop repeating your off-topic questions here.

So when you quote Scripture here on the CAFs, inocente–since you have stated that not everything written in the Bible is theopneustos–how do we know if it’s one of the verses you consider* theopneustos*?

This is most certainly a valid question.

When you quoted here John 21:21, are you saying this is theopneustos, or does this have the equivalent, in your opinion, of something from Aesop’s fables, something akin to the aphorism “don’t trust strangers” or something of that ilk?

 

[PRmerger]

I asked you to stay on-topic instead of repeatedly asking me the same off-topic questions. You started your thread, so that’s good. What’s not so hot is that even after you acknowledge your repeated questions to me are off-topic, you still repeat the same off-topic question again even in the same post!

Only because you stated you weren’t going to check that other thread for a week.

I’ll come back after a week to see what’s gone on.

And because you indicated you weren’t going to provide me with an answer there either.

What I won’t do is join a debate that is purely about defending myself and my church at your whim, particularly when there doesn’t seem to be anything here to defend.

PS: 1 Thess 5:19-20 – test the prophets, hold on to what is good and reject the rest.

So is this theopneustos, inocente, in your opinion? Shouldn’t be too hard to answer: yes or no?

But here’s the really difficult part for you: how do you know if it’s theopneustos?

My prediction: it won’t be answered without begging the question.

It simply can’t be answered. One needs the Catholic Church to discern whether it’s theopneustos or not.

There is no other way.

 

[PRmerger]

lthough it would have been useful if you’d thought to PM me the title and OP for agreement first.

Why would I do that?

At any rate more productive than you trawling through my posts to other people on other threads back to last summer in order to repeatedly quote me selectively and unnecessarily (still can’t believe you spent your time doing that ).

It’s quite easy. Do you not know about the multiquote feature and the search function?

It’s a great honor to have a thread named after me and as promised I’ll look in after a week, but you really surprised me by the one-sided wording and by only inviting non-Catholics.

There’s been many a thread that’s invited “Sola Scriptura advocates” and Non-Catholics to discuss. No one takes that to mean they can’t post there unless they’re in the OP title. Catholics always join these threads.

Incidentally, you seem rattled that your name is in the OP. Many a thread has used people’s screennames.

Doesn’t seem much in it for me

No reason you can’t post your answer there, or really, even here.
*
Not a single reason.*

Except that it can’t be answered without acceding to the authority of the CC.

unless, hopefully, some Catholics post and there’s an open discussion.

Yup. Catholics have posted there.

 

[Betterave]

The act of submitting to his authority means you’ve chosen to adapt his morality. It may not sit well with your conscience (at first) but that’s what you’ve done. Where you may have said “act “x” is always wrong (absolute), I won’t do that, it’s against my morality.” You’ve now decided that act “x” is “ok” under certain circumstances (relative). The circumstance of “my boss told me to”. Your morality has changed. It’s more than what you think, it’s how you act. You do something enough, it becomes the norm.

No. The act of submitting to his authority does not means I’ve chosen to adopt (or adapt) his morality. And I have not now decided that act “x” is “ok” under certain circumstances. I explained why these assertions you make are not the case and you have simply ignored my explanation. Why is that?? Some obvious explanations jump to mind, but I’d like to hear your answer.

 

[larkin31]

Only PRmerger need read this post, everyone else can pass on by (I’d have PM’d it except for feeling the need for a public record).

I asked you to stay on-topic instead of repeatedly asking me the same off-topic questions. You started your thread, so that’s good. What’s not so hot is that even after you acknowledge your repeated questions to me are off-topic, you still repeat the same off-topic question again even in the same post!

As I already said, I posted on your thread, although it would have been useful if you’d thought to PM me the title and OP for agreement first. At any rate more productive than you trawling through my posts to other people on other threads back to last summer in order to repeatedly quote me selectively and unnecessarily (still can’t believe you spent your time doing that ). Never mind, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It’s a great honor to have a thread named after me and as promised I’ll look in after a week, but you really surprised me by the one-sided wording and by only inviting non-Catholics. Doesn’t seem much in it for me unless, hopefully, some Catholics post and there’s an open discussion. I’ve 11 hectares of orchard to get round before the almonds start blossoming, and in any event joined CAF for discussion, not to stroke my own or anyone else’s ego.

Anyway, one last time, please stop repeating your off-topic questions here. Perhaps you could pray a while about whether either of us needs this hassle in our lives. If you want to reply to this then please PM me or post on your new thread, but for pity’s sake stop repeating your off-topic questions here.

Check your pm for my note, anyway.

 

[Betterave]

Yes, I rather like going on tangents in a discussion here. It mimics real life dialogue, don’t you think?

I mean, really, who, when sitting around drinking a beer and chatting about religion, actually stays on the original topic? Natural discussion progresses into tangents and more interesting ideas.

Isn’t this called “derailing” a thread and isn’t there a rule against it at CAF? Let me check…

Ah, yes there is:
DISCUSSION FORUMS, Rule #1: Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t this called “derailing” a thread and isn’t there a rule against it at CAF? Let me check…

Ah, yes there is:
DISCUSSION FORUMS, Rule #1: Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.

I leave it to the Mods to discern when I need to be corrected.

A certain latitude is given with threads. Otherwise, really, each thread could be asked and answered in about 2 pages, no?

 

[larkin31]

…
It is an absolute for any reasonable person.

It is an absolute principle that we should be reasonable. If you reject that there is no point in continuing this discussion…

(You have given the impression that you don’t believe in being reasonable… )

There are plenty of times that "reasonableness’ is NOT the most important value. There is nothing “absolute” about it. But sure, it is quite valuable and quite universal in importance.

I am not interested in persuading you, so I am not interested in trucking out examples that are easy for me to think of and difficult for you. You can ignore the conversation as much as you like. It is really just chat, no more. I am not here to proselytize.

 

[PRmerger]

There are plenty of times that "reasonableness’ is NOT the most important value. There is nothing “absolute” about it. But sure, it is quite valuable and quite universal in importance.

Indeed. This is a very Catholic statement!

Pope JPII proclaimed as much in his magnificent encyclical* Fides et Ratio*.

 

[jonfawkes]

No. The act of submitting to his authority does not means I’ve chosen to adopt (or adapt) his morality. And I have not now decided that act “x” is “ok” under certain circumstances. I explained why these assertions you make are not the case and you have simply ignored my explanation. Why is that?? Some obvious explanations jump to mind, but I’d like to hear your answer.

Your original premise was this

An example: Your boss tells you to do something that you consider immoral. You recognize that your boss has authority over you, so you do what he tells you. You submit to his authority without recognizing the morality of his authority.

It is the act of “doing what he tells you” is where you’ve abandoned your morality and let his supplant it. You are doing what he thinks is right not what you think is right. You are no longer acting in a moral sense as you once defined it but rather as he defines it. Your morality as an active principle is gone. His remains.

You are saying but “I’m just going along, to get along.” - Yep, you are no longer following your morals but his.

Can’t make it any clearer.

 

[Betterave]

It was that as most of us would not apply the claim “The human person is worthy of profound respect” to those who commit crimes against humanity in the same way as we would apply it to their victims, the claim is not absolute.

Welcome back.

Here’s one obvious thing that’s wrong with your argument here: From your statement of fact about most people’s treatment of a claim, nothing follows about the truth (or range of applicability) of that claim - unless you have already shown that the truth about the kind of claim in question is determined by how most people regard it; and you certainly haven’t done that, correct? So your argument is clearly a non sequitur.

Thanks for the welcome back. Good luck with the orchard, sounds like fun(?).

 

[Betterave]

Your original premise was this:

An example: Your boss tells you to do something that you consider immoral. You recognize that your boss has authority over you, so you do what he tells you. You submit to his authority without recognizing the morality of his authority.

That was never a premise. That was an example illustrating my claim.

It is the act of “doing what he tells you” is where you’ve abandoned your morality and let his supplant it. You are doing what he thinks is right not what you think is right. You are no longer acting in a moral sense as you once defined it but rather as he defines it. Your morality as an active principle is gone. His remains.

If you act immorally, that does not imply that you are acting *morally *(just according to a ‘new’ or ‘alternate’ morality) - that is utter nonsense. I explained this already. You continue to repeat yourself and to ignore my explanation.

You are saying but “I’m just going along, to get along.” - Yep, you are no longer following your morals but his.

Right, I’m not following my morals - since I am acting immorally. And those are not “his morals” either - let me add to the example that I gave that my boss recognizes the immorality of his action just as well as I do. Also, that we feel contrition about what we did and resolve never to do it again (this is not necessary - I only add it because you are having such a hard time seeing the very basic point here).

Can’t make it any clearer.

You can’t make your failure to read what I wrote and to understand it any clearer! Please make an effort to actually respond to my argument. The point I am making is a very simple one and the arguments for it should be extremely obvious.

 

[Betterave]

I leave it to the Mods to discern when I need to be corrected.

A certain latitude is given with threads. Otherwise, really, each thread could be asked and answered in about 2 pages, no?

No. There is often plenty of relevant material to discuss on a given topic without needing to introduce irrelevant tangents, especially in order to artificially lengthen a thread. If there’s really not much to be said on a topic, there’s no reason to go ahead and have a long thread about it anyway (which isn’t actually about that topic). Obviously there’s some latitude on this. I’m just suggesting you re-evalute your latitude-attitude in this particular case.

 

[PRmerger]

No. There is often plenty of relevant material to discuss on a given topic without needing to introduce irrelevant tangents, especially in order to artificially lengthen a thread.

I believe it is a relevant tangent.

This would be an example of an irrelevant tangent: I believe that turnips are the best vegetable! What does everyone else think?

Example of relevant tangents: my other posts that are tangential.