Morality and knowledge

[fakename]

Is it necessary, for morality, that people should understand why they are performing good actions?

Or is it sufficient that people should only perform these actions?

 

[fakename]

"Is it necessary, for morality, that people should understand why they are performing good actions?

Or is it sufficient that people should only perform these actions?"

To make myself clearer: It seems that people only do things when they know what to do. So if we want someone to act good, should we take the time to teach them or should we order them to do such and such?

This is what I want discuss.

 

[underacloud]

So if we want someone to act good, should we take the time to teach them or should we order them to do such and such?

Both.

I order my children not to go on the road. When they are old enough to understand, I explain to them that it is very dangerous.

The same applies to morality. It is proper to instruct people to act rightly. It is best if they understand why of course, but if they lack the ability to comprehend the morality of a given situation, it is still correct to teach (or order) them to act in a certain way. Even if a person cannot understand the reasons for certain actions being moral or imoral, there is an objective morality (an objective good or evil) to the actions that should be considered regardless.

This is why Catholic’s are bound to act in accordance with teachings of the Church, whether or not we agree or understand them. As individuals, we lack the wisdom to ascertain the morality of all the situations we face in our lives. God, through the Church, provides guidance/instruction so that we can act moraly even when we lack to wisdom to understand why…like the child who should not run onto the road.

 

[fakename]

to underacloud:

What you wrote is true but as usually I have other questions:

1. isn’t it true that if someone doesn’t even think that they should follow your orders, that they would resent you, sometimes to an extent that would keep them from learning what is good?
2. if people only do a good thing out of cowardice or rather fear of force, would it still be a good thing? Would it still be imputable to them? Would it be imputed to you?

 

[underacloud]

1. isn’t it true that if someone doesn’t even think that they should follow your orders, that they would resent you, sometimes to an extent that would keep them from learning what is good?

Certainly this can be true. A good example is the damage done by some priests (although note this is not unique to the Catholic Church) through abuse of children; how can we expect abused children to recognise God through the Church in such a case? Their resentment may prevent them from learning the truth about God and morality, and this adds further to the sin of the abuser.

1. if people only do a good thing out of cowardice or rather fear of force, would it still be a good thing? Would it still be imputable to them? Would it be imputed to you?

It would still be a good thing, as everything has an objective moral value. But presumably to “accidentally” act in a moral way would not be a moral good attributed to the person.