B
Bguananga13
Guest
Is morality embedded in our hearts or does it have to be taught?
- Status
G
goodguy2342
Guest
I believe both. Some are naturally humble and good natured. Some willingly do what was shown/taught by example as they know they should.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Both – it’s embedded, and it must be learned. The Catechism teaches that the Natural Moral Law is written in our hearts, but that we are responsible for forming our consciences so that we are able to act in accordance with it.
V
Vico
Guest
M
midori
Guest
Some of it probably is, but a lot of it has to be taught.
Human sacrifice, exposing babies to the elements or drowning/smothering them at birth, a culture of “it’s okay to steal— but it’s impermissible to get caught!”, religious rites that involve orgies or drunkenness---- those were all common elements in pagan cultures. And that’s why the Christian emphasis on agape was so revolutionary-- while the pagans had the concept of “hospitality towards strangers”, the Christians had the concept of “equality before God”.
So you can see an example of this mindset in the letter from Emperor Julian to Arascius, the pagan High Priest of Galatia. Julian took the view that the Christians were indulging in false piety, to coerce people to join them, and that his people ought to start erecting hostels and supporting the poor, or else everyone will see that they do nothing to support their own poor— but the Christians are happy to support everyone’s poor.
Human sacrifice, exposing babies to the elements or drowning/smothering them at birth, a culture of “it’s okay to steal— but it’s impermissible to get caught!”, religious rites that involve orgies or drunkenness---- those were all common elements in pagan cultures. And that’s why the Christian emphasis on agape was so revolutionary-- while the pagans had the concept of “hospitality towards strangers”, the Christians had the concept of “equality before God”.
So you can see an example of this mindset in the letter from Emperor Julian to Arascius, the pagan High Priest of Galatia. Julian took the view that the Christians were indulging in false piety, to coerce people to join them, and that his people ought to start erecting hostels and supporting the poor, or else everyone will see that they do nothing to support their own poor— but the Christians are happy to support everyone’s poor.
E
edwest211
Guest
It is taught.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
Both. And the ‘embedded’ is natural moral law, I believe is a proof of God. For without God, there is no reason for morality.
K
kill051
Guest
Perfectly stated: concise, cogent and elegant. Bravo.
B
Bguananga13
Guest
I was always taught since we are made in Gods image we are born with moralities but I was also told that God taught morality to Adam and Eve and gave Moses the tablets so that must indicate that we were taught morality too. If we think about when we were kids we were most likely taught by our parents.
F
fide
Guest
That depends on the trustworthiness of the teacher. Teachers can be wrong, as we can be wrong, “in conscience.” The Lord left a solid reference, a teacher with moral authority, in the universal moral teachings of the Catholic Church. We all personally do have a conscience, and the gift of reason to discern right and wrong - BUT we also have confusion in our souls, the wounds of concupiscence that must be straightened, corrected if wrong, led to true righteousness by the Truth of Christ and His Church.
One must be wary of pride in this matter! Concupiscence also temps us to think more highly - and more trustingly - of our opinions and desires than we ought. Humbly, even if we are fairly sure we are right about a moral question, we should proceed slowly, prayerfully, carefully listening to the judgments of others whom we respect or should respect (especially, the Church!) before we conclude that our own conscience is right in the matter and the judgments of the others are wrong.
A wise man once told me, “If you are unsure, sit down.” In other words, don’t walk by an uncertain light, especially in the minefield of moral choices. Pray some more, maybe a lot more, before acting.
G
Gorgias
Guest
As humans, we have two obligations:
- to form our conscience to the best of our ability
- to follow the dictates of our conscience
In your case, if your teacher (the Church? your priest?) is telling you something that you believe to be incorrect, then your responsibility is to determine whether it is he or you who is mistaken, and to act appropriately.
(What we cannot do is merely shrug and say “meh… it’s my conscience, and it’s telling me to rob that bank, so I’ve gotta do what my conscience says!” or even, “meh… if he says it’s right, then that’s my excuse – I’ll do it, even though I know it’s wrong!”)
Conscience is a gift, but God would have us use it wisely…
Last edited:
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
We see this far too often today. “Primacy of conscience” is taken to mean essentially hedonism: I’ll do whatever I please or I’ll behave in a self-indulgent manner because I feel like it. It’s one of the most horribly misunderstood Christian concepts today, I’d say almost as misunderstood as “Christian freedom” (where freedom is correctly defined as the liberty to choose to do what is objectively right and good but mistakenly taken to mean having license to do whatever one wants).
F
fide
Guest
It sounds as though you are talking about prudence - what is the true good called for in a particular situation or circumstance. If your thought is a sin, and the adviser is suggesting a non-sinful act, then he’s got something important on his side. If he suggests a non-sinful good, and you lean toward a different non-sinful good, then if its “apples or oranges”, either is good.
But it is never good to do evil so that some apparent good might come. The end does not justify the means: the means must, in itself, be good as well as the end must be good.
Suppose there are only two choices - say at an election: One candidate promises abortion on demand, the other promises to limit abortion in some significant way. We ought to do what we can, in such an election, to lessen the evil that will certainly come after that election. Abortion will definitely come after the election, but if one candidate wins, the evil will be lessened. In this case, to lessen the evil is the most good, the best thing, that we can do, and hence we ought to do that good.
But it is never good to do evil so that some apparent good might come. The end does not justify the means: the means must, in itself, be good as well as the end must be good.
Suppose there are only two choices - say at an election: One candidate promises abortion on demand, the other promises to limit abortion in some significant way. We ought to do what we can, in such an election, to lessen the evil that will certainly come after that election. Abortion will definitely come after the election, but if one candidate wins, the evil will be lessened. In this case, to lessen the evil is the most good, the best thing, that we can do, and hence we ought to do that good.
E
edwest211
Guest
It’s taught. To think otherwise denies reality and the Word of God.
P
Pug
Guest
a) if you are presented with choice to obey or not, and you choose to obey or not, for some reason, this seems like it can be a moral act.
b) but I think some “choices” to obey are more of a case of not even recognizing the presence of a choice, on account of previous choices long made and settled. I still see value in this state of affairs, though, since a person may have worked very hard to deliberately create it, and it is a way to achieve our positive goals.
b) but I think some “choices” to obey are more of a case of not even recognizing the presence of a choice, on account of previous choices long made and settled. I still see value in this state of affairs, though, since a person may have worked very hard to deliberately create it, and it is a way to achieve our positive goals.
P
Pug
Guest
I think habits of virtue can be nurtured. In general they don’t arrive embedded and in full flower. I also think knowledge can improve and make certain choices more attractive.
F
fide
Guest
No, “we” - faithful Catholics - can never “do evil” period, and not even when some apparent good might result. Lethal self defense is not evil. The pregnancy you named is beyond my medical knowledge, so I can’t comment on that, but Catholic medical ethics do not permit evil acts. Self-defense is an act to preserve life and protect life against an evil intent to destroy or gravely harm it.
Here is a good Catholic reference site for Medical bioethics: NCBC
And of course the Catechism.
Here is a good Catholic reference site for Medical bioethics: NCBC
And of course the Catechism.
Concerning contraception:
P
PJM
Guest
Basic Right and Wrong is written on our hearts; BUT morality; moral values, what is Moral and immorla is a learned condition.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
If I understand your question (is it still a moral act even if we don’t want to do it?) yes.
A moral act is still moral even if done for flimsy or even wrong motivations.
Does a little child want to share and take turns? No. They have to be taught to do so, and in some cases, forced.
But sharing and taking turns are still the right thing to do.
Of course, one would hope that with continued development, the child will eventually come around to see the sense of sharing and taking turns, and make it their own (even if it’s still more fun to have all the things and take all the turns
)
A moral act is still moral even if done for flimsy or even wrong motivations.
Does a little child want to share and take turns? No. They have to be taught to do so, and in some cases, forced.
But sharing and taking turns are still the right thing to do.
Of course, one would hope that with continued development, the child will eventually come around to see the sense of sharing and taking turns, and make it their own (even if it’s still more fun to have all the things and take all the turns
)
K
kill051
Guest
Nonsense. The moral law is written on every human heart in letters of fire, which flames do scorch and burn us when we act against it.
- Status