Morality Poll

[ManRay]

Do you believe an absolute morality can be achieved only through God?
Why or why not?

 

[prodigalson2011]

The wording of the poll question is misleading. An absolute moral code applies, by its definition, to everybody. But the existence of an absolute moral code is dependent on absolute value and meaning which are themselves dependent upon God.

The entire concept of moral absolutism becomes incoherent in the lack of an intended order. To apply “oughts” to a system with no ultimate direction or purpose is, prima facie, absurd.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I’m not sure what you mean.

I believe that there is an absolute moral code, that no person at all will follow it perfectly, and that to the extent that we do follow it we are following God whether we know it or not.

Furthermore I also think that a person who wants to and tries to behave morally is more likely to actually behave morally if they know what that means, and, since morality does flow from God, that knowing God makes this much easier.

But I would not say that a person who does not explicitly know God cannot act morally, nor that explicitly knowing truths about God (being of the right religion) means that one necessarily will follow morality at all, let alone better than anyone else.

So, which option does this fall under? My confusion is that poll question is “does it apply only to the religious” to which the answer is no since by definition absolute morality applies to everyone, but the question in your first post is “can it be achieved only through God” to which the answer is yes - both because the morality comes from God, but also because we only do good through God’s grace (which does not require explicit belief in God to receive, at least in this form).

 

[Robert_Caritas]

The wording of the poll question is misleading. An absolute moral code applies, by its definition, to everybody. But the existence of an absolute moral code is dependent on absolute value and meaning which are themselves dependent upon God.

The entire concept of moral absolutism becomes incoherent in the lack of an intended order. To apply “oughts” to a system with no ultimate direction or purpose is, prima facie, absurd.

+1

If you are thinking about applying laws to non-religious people, then we also have to respect their liberty of conscience, but we can’t let terrible things become legal (like murder, incest, or abortion).

It is a fine line, but there are places where there an non-negotiables that we must try to enforce regardless of how people’s consciences are inclined, like murder.

 

[sophion]

I believe that there is an absolute moral code

can you give us some examples of these “absolute moral codes”?
Thanks.

 

[Pat_Payne]

But there is a moral code that most people adhere to, the Natural Law. Even if you don’t believe, that God-inspired law does work on all people.

Cicero said it best in his “On the Laws” when he recounted the story of the founding of the Roman Republic. It began with the rape and subsequent suicide of Lucretia, the daughter of a Roman noble, instigated by Tarquin the Proud, the last king of Rome. Brutus whipped the crowd into righteous fury and went to overthrow Tarquin and found the Republic. At the time, rape was not illegal in Rome, but everyone knew it was wrong, regardless, according to Cicero.

There are certain things that are imprinted on our souls as wrong, so yes. I do believe there is an unwritten morality law that most follow without even knowing it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

can you give us some examples of these “absolute moral codes”?
Thanks.

Thou shall no murder.

 

[LoyalViews]

can you give us some examples of these “absolute moral codes”?
Thanks.

I know that’s not directed towards me, but I can give a few. Abortion, homosexuals relationships and actions, and contraceptives are the big three which are totally, and completely wrong and sinful. Abortion is murder, homosexuals acts and relationships are unnatural, and contraception is contrary to the sexual act, and in some cases results in the death of an unborn child. These things are wrong, always have been and always will no matter what someone’s opinion on the matter is. Euthanasia as well is wrong.

Some other things which are wrong is adultery, and stealing.

I voted no, as in our modern society people believe morality changes with the time, but that’s not right. Truth is truth.

 

[pnewton]

1. The two questions to not match.
2. The poll was public.

Good reasons to have no response or skewed response.

 

[centurionguard]

Catechism Of The Catholic Church
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

ARTICLE 4
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;

• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

**1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.**

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

IN BRIEF

1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three “sources” of the morality of human acts.

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[sophion]

Thou shall no murder.

How is that absolute when the bible itself is full of murders in the name of God? This is obviously CONDITIONAL.

 

[sophion]

I know that’s not directed towards me, but I can give a few. Abortion, homosexuals relationships and actions, and contraceptives are the big three which are totally, and completely wrong and sinful. Abortion is murder, homosexuals acts and relationships are unnatural, and contraception is contrary to the sexual act, and in some cases results in the death of an unborn child.

These things are wrong, always have been and always will no matter what someone’s opinion on the matter is. Euthanasia as well is wrong.

Some other things which are wrong is adultery, and stealing.

I voted no, as in our modern society people believe morality changes with the time, but that’s not right. Truth is truth.

even the Catholic Church allows Abortion on certain conditions, right?

Homosexual acts…i dont like it one bit, but think about the person who was born with this. How can you tell someone not to enact the sexual desires he/she was born with? Even priests find celibacy impossible sometimes!

Contraception…you allow the so called ‘natural method’ and not the artificial? thats just nuts. much in this world is artificial and you have no problem with them. its like telling someone “when you strangle someone make sure to use your hands, dont use a man-made iron cord!”. its the intent and result that matters, not the method!

 

[thewanderer]

even the Catholic Church allows Abortion on certain conditions, right?

Homosexual acts…i dont like it one bit, but think about the person who was born with this. How can you tell someone not to enact the sexual desires he/she was born with? Even priests find celibacy impossible sometimes!

Contraception…you allow the so called ‘natural method’ and not the artificial? thats just nuts. much in this world is artificial and you have no problem with them. its like telling someone “when you strangle someone make sure to use your hands, dont use a man-made iron cord!”. its the intent and result that matters, not the method!

I know that answering this will likely only lead this thread off-topic, I still want to give a basic answer, and if you are really interested in better understanding this topic perhaps you could start a new thread on these questions.

No, the church never allows abortion because abortion is the direct and deliberate killing of an innocent child. What the Church allows are medical procedures necessary for the health/life of the mother which do not directly kill an innocent child, but which sometimes will result in the death of the child as a side-effect.

Saying that following a moral code is difficult does not negate the existence of such a code. In other words, saying that it is too difficult to remain chaste does not change the truth of whether or not chastity is the only moral option.

There actually is a very logical and reasonable explanation for the Church’s position with respect to Contraception and Periodic Abstinance. It gets a little involved so I am not going to try to explain it here and get off-topic, but basically, if you take up the same principles that the Church does then the only logical conclusion you can make is that Contraception is immoral while NFP is perfectly moral and sometimes necessary. The Church’s position and reasoning for her position on this topic is widely misunderstood, even by Catholics, but it is perfectly conistant and logical. Whether or not you agree with the Church’s teachings it is possible to recognize this when you actually understand what exactly it is that the Church says, and why, and what it is that she does** not **say.

I hope this will help clear up some misonceptions.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

How is that absolute when the bible itself is full of murders in the name of God? This is obviously CONDITIONAL.

Killing =/= murder

Murder, specifically, is the killing of an Innocent. There is no instance in the Bible when the killing of an innocent person is condoned.

 

[sophion]

Killing =/= murder

Murder, specifically, is the killing of an Innocent. There is no instance in the Bible when the killing of an innocent person is condoned.

My friend, there is nothing more innocent than a new born baby:
1 Samuel 15:2-3

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
*

Imagine someone killing you, your family and stabbing your baby as revenge for what some of your countrymen did a hundred years ago!!!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

"sophion:

can you give us some examples of these “absolute moral codes”?
Thanks.

Any thing which is pleasing to God is good, anything which is contrary to God’s will is bad. As to what those things are, well that’s a big list.

Note that personal knowledge and such does factor in to a certain extent, in that a person may not be guilty of sin if their will or knowledge is impaired. This is why you will hear people occasionally say things like: a person who is living in an invalid marriage, but has no reason to know or believe this, may be committing objective adultery but is not guilty of the sin of adultery.

How is that absolute when the bible itself is full of murders in the name of God? This is obviously CONDITIONAL.

Nope, you misunderstand what murder is. Not all killing is murder. I imagine that your real issue is that you think that God ordered unjust violence, but that’s another topic.

 

[clem456]

My friend, there is nothing more innocent than a new born baby:
1 Samuel 15:2-3

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants*, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Imagine someone killing you, your family and stabbing your baby as revenge for what some of your countrymen did a hundred years ago!!!

This is impossible to discuss unless you have a grasp of the Catholic understanding of inspiration. How do you profess to know that God actually, literally, spoke these words to the author of Samuel? We do not believe the writers of scripture go into a trance and do “dictation” from God, like a secretary would.

 

[clem456]

can you give us some examples of these “absolute moral codes”?
Thanks.

Ten Commandments.

Beatitudes

 

[thewanderer]

Contraception…you allow the so called ‘natural method’ and not the artificial? thats just nuts. much in this world is artificial and you have no problem with them. its like telling someone “when you strangle someone make sure to use your hands, dont use a man-made iron cord!”. its the intent and result that matters, not the method!

Also, if it is truly only the intent and result that matters, and the means used never makes a difference then I assume you are perfectly fine with someone offing their older but perfectly healthy father for the sake of gaining the money they need to buy a house for themselves and their family. After all, the intent and result (to get the money neded to buy a house for their family) is a good thing, so clearly their action in this case was perfectly moral and legitimate.

 

[clem456]

Do you believe an absolute morality can be achieved only through God?
Why or why not?

God is the source of morality. Morality applies to everyone period, it does not depend on the assent of an individual through religion. Non-religious people can act morally, but not if they act outside of absolute morality.