Morality? What morality?

[Spock]

Here is what you wrote: “Objective morality means that the moral rules are independent from the individual’s perception. It does not mean that everyone will accept them as valid”

This statement means that a moral can stand seperate and apart from anyone being able to perceive it. If it is outside anyones ability to perceive it then how can anyone accept or refuse it?

Ah, I see now. My mistake, obviously. This is what I intended: “Objective morality means that the moral rules exist independently from the individual’s awareness of them or willingness to accept them as such”. It is quite possible that some people are unaware of a specific rule. Or they may be aware, but refuse to follow it.

For example. In the US there is an unwritten rule that even small girls (2-3 years old ones) “should” wear a “bra” on the beach. For a mother coming from Europe this “rule” is plain idiotic - since there is nothing to cover there. In Europe, children under 4-5 years run around stark naked, and no one considers that inapporpriate. When these mothers come over from Europe they are either unaware of this “rule”, or may choose to disregard it. Yet, the common custom is there. It is not a “crime” to violate it, of course, but not all moral rules are codified into laws.

 

[ignatius777]

Ah, I see now. My mistake, obviously. This is what I intended: “Objective morality means that the moral rules exist independently from the individual’s awareness of them or willingness to accept them as such”. It is quite possible that some people are unaware of a specific rule. Or they may be aware, but refuse to follow it.

For example. In the US there is an unwritten rule that even small girls (2-3 years old ones) “should” wear a “bra” on the beach. For a mother coming from Europe this “rule” is plain idiotic - since there is nothing to cover there. In Europe, children under 4-5 years run around stark naked, and no one considers that inapporpriate. When these mothers come over from Europe they are either unaware of this “rule”, or may choose to disregard it. Yet, the common custom is there. It is not a “crime” to violate it, of course, but not all moral rules are codified into laws.

Thank you for speaking clearly.

Thats a custom not a moral. Being nude in public is more like the moral issue in this case.

 

[ignatius777]

Ah, I see now. My mistake, obviously. This is what I intended: “Objective morality means that the moral rules exist independently from the individual’s awareness of them or willingness to accept them as such”. It is quite possible that some people are unaware of a specific rule. Or they may be aware, but refuse to follow it.

For example. In the US there is an unwritten rule that even small girls (2-3 years old ones) “should” wear a “bra” on the beach. For a mother coming from Europe this “rule” is plain idiotic - since there is nothing to cover there. In Europe, children under 4-5 years run around stark naked, and no one considers that inapporpriate. When these mothers come over from Europe they are either unaware of this “rule”, or may choose to disregard it. Yet, the common custom is there. It is not a “crime” to violate it, of course, but not all moral rules are codified into laws.

Even in Europe total nudity is not common practice in all public places, not even the beach

 

[Spock]

Thank you for speaking clearly.

Thats a custom not a moral. Being nude in public is more like the moral issue in this case.

What is the difference? The severity of the act - as perceived generally. There is no solid dividing line between a “custom” and “morality”. They both belong to the “ethical behavior”, in other words, they belong to the “ought to” types of propositions.

Even in Europe total nudity is not common practice in all public places, not even the beach

For small children it is.

 

[ignatius777]

What is the difference? The severity of the act - as perceived generally. There is no solid dividing line between a “custom” and “morality”. They both belong to the “ethical behavior”, in other words, they belong to the “ought to” types of propositions.

For small children it is.

Theres a major difference. I gave you a dividing line. Public nudity is moral question. To what degree its allowed is custom. You agree a topless woman on the beach is not the same as a topless woman in a board meeting at a local bank AGAIN even in Europe. If being topless is OK at the beach then why not the boardroom?

 

[inocente]

Well Mr. Rolly-Eyes, I’ve participated in one thread involving trolley problems and there was no screaming or getting upset. I also don’t see that happening here either - do you?

Methinks you misread - I said “morality thread”, not “moral dilemma”. Take any thread where people disagree on a moral issue - the Relative Morality thread we were both just on, any thread on artificial contraception or homosexual union, etc. Are they all sweetness and light, a meeting of minds, no signs at all of frustration, no hint that if it wasn’t for CAF’s rules people might be swearing at each other?

I know you’re not good at constructing arguments that actually make sense, but seriously, how is that supposed to work?

That also happens often on morality threads - anyone who disagrees can’t possibly be making sense .

 

[inocente]

It would be helpful if you could explain precisely where we have given two different answers** to the same question**…

You started this line of posts by quoting me on the “innocent girl” dilemma. If you go back you’ll see I referred to two posters who gave different answers to that question based on different reasoning.

*Where do you obtain your freedom, let alone your freedom of conscience? From atomic particles?

Moreover freedom of conscience implies that morality is not divorced from reality but depends on it!*

I seem to remember we’re currently discussing your notion of reality and atoms on another thread. Now who started that thread – oh yes, twas you. Fancy joining me over there instead of us drifting off-topic?

 

[4Horsemen]

Very well.

Definition of morality: “The written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior”. The written rules are codified in the laws, the unwritten ones are learned from the parents and the environment. There are some laws which do not reflect morality and there are some moral rules which cannot be codified.

In your definition of morality, you seem to be defining social and civil laws more so than the total sphere of what morality consists. Morality, in general, relates to the interaction with each other, the harmony or disharmony within ourselves, and the way we perceive our purpose on earth with regards to our Creator.

Objective morality means that the moral rules are independent from the individual’s perception. It does not mean that everyone will accept them as valid. Objective rules of morality reflect the stance of society, and are subject to change from one society to another, or they may change in the same society as time passes.

People of all races and cultures, from the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, Hindus, Greeks and Romans, have recognized moral duty, the absoluteness of the Law of Nature. This idea of absolute is also objective, not subject to our own perceptions or likes and dislikes, ideals, customs. That which is objective moral law is also absolute. How we apply it to different circumstances is subject to debate. That’s why we have a court of law, which attempts to apply law that is pre-determined.

Absolute morality means that there are some rules of morality which can never change. They are true for all societies for all times.

The Law of Nature, which is objective, is also absolute and points to an Unconditioned Reality, of which there can only be one, unlike conditioned realities which are dependent on one another. Whatever is not absolute or objective is relative. Examples given above of moral dilemmas with seemingly different moral laws just demonstrate different interpretations of objective reality.

Application of the natural law varies depending on the various conditions of life’s times, places and circumstances. It is immutable and permanent throughout history even when rejected or not perceived clearly by everyone.

 

[Betterave]

Methinks you misread - I said “morality thread”, not “moral dilemma”. Take any thread where people disagree on a moral issue - the Relative Morality thread we were both just on, any thread on artificial contraception or homosexual union, etc. Are they all sweetness and light, a meeting of minds, no signs at all of frustration, no hint that if it wasn’t for CAF’s rules people might be swearing at each other?

Methinks you forgot the context:

Betterave:
Or could it be that you never gave your own answer [to the DILEMMA] because having trouble doing so is actually very typical and your characterization of the situation is nonsense? ("…they will give differing answers and then scream at each other. They will argue about it for days and get really upset with each other because neither side has a killer argument – both sides are being entirely sincere and rational but starting from different points." - Will they? Highly unlikely.)

inocente:
I take it you’ve never been on a morality thread on CAF then?

Or was I mistaken in thinking that your response was intended to make a relevant reply to what I said?

That also happens often on morality threads - anyone who disagrees can’t possibly be making sense .

If you don’t make sense, that must be my problem, right? I’m just saying you don’t make sense because I disagree with you, right? You certainly shouldn’t attempt to say something that does make sense.

[You might want to take a look at Spock’s posts; I also disagree with him, but he’s comporting himself much more rationally than you are, and my responses to him thus do not require me to point out that he makes no sense. The main difference is he actually attempts to respond to objections (and b.t.w., that would be a *requirement for what is called ‘intellectual honesty’).]

 

[Betterave]

Very true observation. The difference is in the seriousness of the actions. The unwritten rules might be sometimes hazy in the borderline cases. The reprcussions will vary too, based upon the severity of customs violated.

Why do you think the difference is one in the “seriousness of the actions”? Do you think that is just obviously true? What does that actually mean?

 

[sidbrown]

"Absolute morality means that there are some rules of morality which can never change. They are true for all societies for all times. "
The Law of Nature, which is objective, is also absolute and points to an Unconditioned Reality, of which there can only be one, unlike conditioned realities which are dependent on one another.

How do you know that your definition is not an artificial overgeneralisation of how society evolves to best deal with circumstances so that it may bring about the greater good for everyone?
How do you prove absolute morality? Can it be applied or is it useful at all for certain cases. For example, what is the absolute correct morality with reference to the question of slavery, capital punishment or torture?

 

[4Horsemen]

How do you know that your definition is not an artificial overgeneralisation of how society evolves to best deal with circumstances so that it may bring about the greater good for everyone?
How do you prove absolute morality? Can it be applied or is it useful at all for certain cases. For example, what is the absolute correct morality with reference to the question of slavery, capital punishment or torture?

In post 87, I tried to argue that the natural law, understood through right reason and present in the heart of each of us, is universal in its precepts, and extends in authority over all human beings. I also expressed that the natural law is immutable and permanent throughout history and within all cultures and races. It subsists to uphold righteous or moral behavior and condemn unrighteous or immoral behavior. So even if it is not clearly understood, we can come to an understanding of right and wrong behavior in the quest for a just and good society.

There are different ways of contemplating moral law. The first and primary is eternal law (absolute), that is the source of all law. Then comes natural law which is what man discovers in his/her dealings with other human beings and within his/her own psyche. Next is revealed law, that is the Old Testament and New. And finally is civil and ecclesiastical laws.

 

[sidbrown]

I also expressed that the natural law is immutable and permanent throughout history and within all cultures and races. It subsists to uphold righteous or moral behavior and condemn unrighteous or immoral behavior. So even if it is not clearly understood, we can come to an understanding of right and wrong behavior in the quest for a just and good society…

This does sound good, but there is a problem when you try to see how this would apply to a particular case. Take for example, the just war concept, which generally speaking is derived while considering the natural law and moral principles. During the Vietnam war, there were huge demonstrations against the war and there were Catholic theologians arguing that the war was unjust according to the just war principle.Many young Catholic men asked the bishops for a clearcut statement so that they could be exempt from serving in a war which was unjust according to Catholic priniciples, similar to the situation with Jehovah’s witnesses who are generally granted some sort of exemption based on religious grounds. However, it was not forthcoming. Was the Iraq war just or unjust? Was WWII just or unjust? Why were so many Catholic clergy on the side of the Ustase in Croatia in WWII?
Similarly, can you tell me according to the natural law, whether or not capital punishment, torture or slavery is absolutely right or absolutely wrong?

 

[Spock]

In your definition of morality, you seem to be defining social and civil laws more so than the total sphere of what morality consists. Morality, in general, relates to the interaction with each other, the harmony or disharmony within ourselves, and the way we perceive our purpose on earth with regards to our Creator.

1. Interaction with each other is what the social customs, norms and laws are all about. So far we agree, this is what I said. You wish to extend it into two more relationships, one is with yourself, and the other with some hypothetical “Creator”.
2. The relationship with yourself is your business, and no one has any say-so in it. So that is not a good candidate for morality.
3. The existence of some hypothetical Creator must be established first, before it can be included in the moral sphere. Otherwise, one could argue that the relationship with the tooth-fairy, the Loch Ness monster or Santa Claus should also be a “moral issue”.

I don’t think so. Morality can be viewed as a purely secular concept, or it can be viewed as a theological one. If you wish to define it as a theological problem, then we cannot continue.

People of all races and cultures, from the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, Hindus, Greeks and Romans, have recognized moral duty, the absoluteness of the Law of Nature. This idea of absolute is also objective, not subject to our own perceptions or likes and dislikes, ideals, customs. That which is objective moral law is also absolute. How we apply it to different circumstances is subject to debate. That’s why we have a court of law, which attempts to apply law that is pre-determined.

The Law of Nature, which is objective, is also absolute and points to an Unconditioned Reality, of which there can only be one, unlike conditioned realities which are dependent on one another. Whatever is not absolute or objective is relative. Examples given above of moral dilemmas with seemingly different moral laws just demonstrate different interpretations of objective reality.

Application of the natural law varies depending on the various conditions of life’s times, places and circumstances. It is immutable and permanent throughout history even when rejected or not perceived clearly by everyone.

At best those people hypothesized about some nebulous “Law of Nature”. Obviously you do not talk about the laws of physics, rather some “moral law”. If you wish to include it into our contemplation you need to substantiate that such a law exists. It is not sufficient to say that “everyone”, during all ages “recognized” a uniform, absolute law. The point here is the uniformity. Sure, we can say that in every society there were some customs, which described the socially acceptable behavior. But they were not necessarily the same, even though there were overlaps. As far as we know, pretty much every society came up with some variant of the Golden Rule. But even that cannot be considered “absolute”.

 

[Spock]

Theres a major difference. I gave you a dividing line.

You need to give a generic “dividing line”, not just a specific one for nudity.

Public nudity is moral question.

Why? It is not a moral issue in a tropical climate.

To what degree its allowed is custom. You agree a topless woman on the beach is not the same as a topless woman in a board meeting at a local bank AGAIN even in Europe. If being topless is OK at the beach then why not the boardroom?

Different customs. I can imagine a serious climate change, with a really rising temperature, and then nudity would become acceptable everywhere. Survival would demand it.

 

[Spock]

Why do you think the difference is one in the “seriousness of the actions”? Do you think that is just obviously true? What does that actually mean?

It means the effect of some action has on someone else. Killing someone is much more intrusive than picking your nose in a party.

 

[inocente]

Or was I mistaken in thinking that your response was intended to make a relevant reply to what I said?

I gave my answer to the dilemma in post #66 to you - “btw, yes I would push the button”.

If you don’t make sense, that must be my problem, right? I’m just saying you don’t make sense because I disagree with you, right? You certainly shouldn’t attempt to say something that does make sense.

You say I don’t make sense but I note you seem to be extra careful not to show too much emotion, as often happens on morality threads .

The idea is fairly simple, so at the risk of being told I’m repeating myself, reexamine the dilemma in post #34.

If I consistently use a do-least-harm reasoning then I will say it’s wrong to kill the girl if it won’t save anyone else and that it’s right if it will save one million others. Alternatively, if I consistently use a do-no-evil reasoning I’ll say it’s wrong to kill the girl no matter what.

Both types of reasoning also lead to the same conclusion that in general killing is wrong. There are other possible types of reasoning too, but we would probably all agree that any type of reasoning is faulty if it doesn’t conclude that in general killing is wrong.

Sticking with just do-least-harm and do-no-evil, the contention is:

(a) There’s no objective means to choose between them, no logic by which we can conclude either is inherently faulty. Therefore whichever we happen to choose is a subjective preference.

(b) It’s hard for us to openly-minded switch between the two – we intuitively want there to be one good answer to the dilemma and find it hard to accept other answers.

(c) The fact that both types of reasoning produce the same answers in general can fool us into believing there’s one objective morality.

 

[4Horsemen]

This does sound good, but there is a problem when you try to see how this would apply to a particular case. Take for example, the just war concept, which generally speaking is derived while considering the natural law and moral principles. During the Vietnam war, there were huge demonstrations against the war and there were Catholic theologians arguing that the war was unjust according to the just war principle.Many young Catholic men asked the bishops for a clearcut statement so that they could be exempt from serving in a war which was unjust according to Catholic priniciples, similar to the situation with Jehovah’s witnesses who are generally granted some sort of exemption based on religious grounds. However, it was not forthcoming. Was the Iraq war just or unjust? Was WWII just or unjust? Why were so many Catholic clergy on the side of the Ustase in Croatia in WWII?
Similarly, can you tell me according to the natural law, whether or not capital punishment, torture or slavery is absolutely right or absolutely wrong?

Yes, it is often difficult to apply the moral law to certain particular situations, and war is one of them. Defining a just war is a rigorous process due to the gravity of the decision to go to war. I checked the Catechism to find the conditions or moral legitimacy. The Catechism described the conditions for legitimate defense by military force. I’ll list them.

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

–there must be serious prospects of success;

– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of desruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Earlier on this thread, I questioned the moral issue of using nuclear bombs on innocent people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

In my opinion, I believe that war (just or not) is an evil. (Our Lady of Fatima said that war is a punishment for sin in the world). But we live in a world where immoral dictators and other miscreants cause trouble for innocent people. I would say that we need to protect our own country first. However, there are struggles all over the world and countries asking for our help. In Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, Afganistan, I think we had in mind the moral principle to win freedom for the common man. So our intentions were good. The trouble is many in these countries considered us as aggressors. Sometimes it’s best to mind one’s one business. Our leaders should meet with world leaders and set goals for a just society, even though other cultures have a vastly different vision for their people. If we isolate ourselves and cut off communication with world leaders (unless they first cut off communication with us, and it could be likely in the Mideast if things continue spiraling downward), we will pay a price–not just a higher oil price either.

As for capital punishment, torture and slavery . . . the human being is made by God and is worthy of respect. Almost everyone would agree that it is wrong/evil to murder, torture and take away someone’s freedom to shape their own destiny as slavery does. Although eternal (or absolute) law holds these to be wrong, a serious evil, as human beings we seek the moral law and sometimes we miss the mark. As for capital punishment, it was once necessary to keep order in society and safety for its members. The State has been given authority in decisions of civil rights and law.

Torture is complicated by the definition of what torture really is and the morality of the use of various items of torture. Still, it is a decision made by society based on the moral law that requires that we safeguard human rights and care for the weak. So if it’s necessary to use torture to save our citizens, public authority has the right as long as prisoners are treated humanely.

Slavery has been around for a long time, and it was permitted and practiced by many societies. However, the Christian idea of respect for life removes slavery as an institution.

 

[4Horsemen]

1. Interaction with each other is what the social customs, norms and laws are all about. So far we agree, this is what I said. You wish to extend it into two more relationships, one is with yourself, and the other with some hypothetical “Creator”.

The moral landscape is larger than you envision.

1. The relationship with yourself is your business, and no one has any say-so in it. So that is not a good candidate for morality.

Do you not think it is possible to sin by yourself? Think not only actions, but evil or just plain nasty thoughts.

1. The existence of some hypothetical Creator must be established first, before it can be included in the moral sphere. Otherwise, one could argue that the relationship with the tooth-fairy, the Loch Ness monster or Santa Claus should also be a “moral issue”.

Although that is not the subject of the thread, you might want to read “The First Cause Argument” explained by Peter Kreeft: peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

I don’t think so. Morality can be viewed as a purely secular concept, or it can be viewed as a theological one. If you wish to define it as a theological problem, then we cannot continue.

I tried to explain (above) how morality can be explained on different levels: Eternal/absolute/Divine Law, Natural Law (based on Divine Law), Revelation, and Civil & Ecclesiastical Law. So customs can be viewed as the social aspect or relative law.

At best those people hypothesized about some nebulous “Law of Nature”. Obviously you do not talk about the laws of physics, rather some “moral law”. If you wish to include it into our contemplation you need to substantiate that such a law exists. It is not sufficient to say that “everyone”, during all ages “recognized” a uniform, absolute law. The point here is the uniformity. Sure, we can say that in every society there were some customs, which described the socially acceptable behavior. But they were not necessarily the same, even though there were overlaps. As far as we know, pretty much every society came up with some variant of the Golden Rule. But even that cannot be considered “absolute”.

The subject of the thread, as you realize, is morality. So, no, I’m not talking about the laws of physics. I mentioned in some post that societies, in attempting to set up a just government and rule, come to an understanding of moral precepts that are objective. Although circumstances change, the ultimate principles do not.

 

[sidbrown]

Yes, it is often difficult to apply the moral law to certain particular situations, and war is one of them. Defining a just war is a rigorous process due to the gravity of the decision to go to war. I checked the Catechism to find the conditions or moral legitimacy. The Catechism described the conditions for legitimate defense by military force. I’ll list them.

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

–there must be serious prospects of success;

– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of desruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Earlier on this thread, I questioned the moral issue of using nuclear bombs on innocent people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

In my opinion, I believe that war (just or not) is an evil. (Our Lady of Fatima said that war is a punishment for sin in the world). But we live in a world where immoral dictators and other miscreants cause trouble for innocent people. I would say that we need to protect our own country first. However, there are struggles all over the world and countries asking for our help. In Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, Afganistan, I think we had in mind the moral principle to win freedom for the common man. So our intentions were good. The trouble is many in these countries considered us as aggressors. Sometimes it’s best to mind one’s one business. Our leaders should meet with world leaders and set goals for a just society, even though other cultures have a vastly different vision for their people. If we isolate ourselves and cut off communication with world leaders (unless they first cut off communication with us, and it could be likely in the Mideast if things continue spiraling downward), we will pay a price–not just a higher oil price either.

As for capital punishment, torture and slavery . . . the human being is made by God and is worthy of respect. Almost everyone would agree that it is wrong/evil to murder, torture and take away someone’s freedom to shape their own destiny as slavery does. Although eternal (or absolute) law holds these to be wrong, a serious evil, as human beings we seek the moral law and sometimes we miss the mark. As for capital punishment, it was once necessary to keep order in society and safety for its members. The State has been given authority in decisions of civil rights and law.

Torture is complicated by the definition of what torture really is and the morality of the use of various items of torture. Still, it is a decision made by society based on the moral law that requires that we safeguard human rights and care for the weak. So if it’s necessary to use torture to save our citizens, public authority has the right as long as prisoners are treated humanely.

Slavery has been around for a long time, and it was permitted and practiced by many societies. However, the Christian idea of respect for life removes slavery as an institution.

But if there are moral absolutes, then capital punishment, slavery and torture should be absolutely right or absolutely wrong. However, they are not. So why does not this prove conclusively that morality is not absolute but varies depending on the culture and the times.