Morality? What morality?

[ignatius777]

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

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

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.

Why?

They have summer in Norway too

 

[4Horsemen]

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.

You’ve probably heard of the non-negotiables regarding moral issues that were often spoken about or written about before the election in 2008 and other times too. I know that abortion is one, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, cloning, embryonic stem-cell research. These are related to specifically pro-life issues. They are absolutely wrong–inherently evil-- in the highest sense because they are like a slap in the face to God our Creator. Other sins relate mostly to our neighbor although they still offend God. Murder is objectively and absolutely evil since it offends God and man. Even Spock agrees. However, Jesus enhances the prohibition against murder saying,

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment. But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.”

Therefore, hate and brutality of any kind are anathema to God. As a Catholic you’ve probably heard of the seven deadly sins: gluttony, pride, lust, anger, greed, sloth, envy.
They are also called Cardinal sins. Captal punishment, slavery and torture (meaning the kind used by authorities) are not subject to the individual but to the state, the government, society, rulers, and even though they are probably objectively evil/morally wrong, it is likely not personally sinful for the individual (like the person who gives the injection for capital punishment or the slave owner or the authority who does the actual waterboarding, for example,) since these particular evils were cultural institutions. (Actually, the Nuremberg Trials reduced that argument saying that any participant in the murders could not use the excuse that he was just doing his job). Nonetheless, an individual can become a proximate cause of the evil by deliberately increasing the pain of the person being punished. Also, you’ve got to think that at the time of slavery, many of these slaves were well-treated and some didn’t even want to leave their masters when slavery was finally declared illicit. Some didn’t know where else to go or just couldn’t make the transition.

BTW, all I can do is relate things as I’ve studied and read but to get to the nitty-gritty of your question, it might be best to add it to the forum as a separate thread. There are some good philosophers and theologians around here.

 

[Spock]

The moral landscape is larger than you envision.

I don’t deny this a-priori. But you need to give more foundation than: “this is what we christians believe”.

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

Sorry, thought-crime belongs to the novel of “1984”. We do not live in that world, fortunately.

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 already did, and I found it horribly stupid. But that does not belong here.

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.

Objective still does not equal absolute. In most societies the legal system is aimed at maintaining the status quo.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I don’t deny this a-priori. But you need to give more foundation than: “this is what we christians believe”.

Not if the poster was just stating what he/she believed.

Sorry, thought-crime belongs to the novel of “1984”. We do not live in that world, fortunately.

Do you know WHY psychopaths kill? I will give you a hint: “psycho-”. The only reason they do what they do is because of those “thought-crimes.”

I already did, and I found it horribly stupid. But that does not belong here.

Well, of course you found it “horribly stupid.” It was Catholic, you did not understand and/or you wish it to be false. Or combinations. I have found that anything Spock disagrees with is considered stupid.

You are hardly objective in your arguments. This post proves just that. You think logic saves you but you only use logic in a way that suits your presuppositions to your advantage. Just use logic. You may claim I do the same, but if only you knew. When me and you argue, I try to clarify and you just repeat things and force it.

You need to give more foundation than: “I found it horibly stupid”.

Objective still does not equal absolute.

Actually, according to my Concise Oxford American Dictionary and my Webster dictionary, they mean the same thing.

In most societies the legal system is aimed at maintaining the status quo.

That does not make them true.

 

[4Horsemen]

Looking at morality from another angle (maybe it was brought up already ), people aren’t usually converted by a syllogism and various philosophical arguments. Non-believers are always asking Christians to prove there is a God and Natural Law. But can they disprove either? They say they don’t have to prove a negative. That’s because they have no argument. So what is preventing unbelievers from making the right choice? According to Pope Benedict, part of the reason is the lack of good witness by Christians. Pascal thinks that since the rational choice is not being made, there must be some irrational obstacles. He considers them to be sins.

St. Augustine’s life is a good example. Although he was raised by a Christian mother, he postponed baptism and for years struggled with heresy and sexual immorality. He is famous for the saying “O Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet.” So belief in heresies and various sinful thoughts or behavior can prevent atheists and agnostics from receiving the faith.

Pope Benedict’s advice to the unbeliever is to try and live as if God exists because the one who does becomes more morally responsible and will realize the truthfulness of his choice. “This is the wager,” he says, “and the winnings are salvation.” Of course he was referring to Pascal’s wager.

John the Baptist’s said “Repent!” as he preceded Christ and His message. Jesus did not say, “Believe the good news and repent.” He said, “Repent and believe the good news.”

 

[sidbrown]

I already did, and I found it horribly stupid. But that does not belong here. ]

Maybe you didn’t like his development of the argument, but there is something to the first cause argument. For example, why was there a Big Bang 14 billion years ago? The whole universe was compacted into a tiny black hole and then exploded and here we are talking about it on CAF. What caused this explosion to happen and how did man’s consciousness and self-awareness come about? Don’t scientists and almost everyone else look for causes?

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

The problem with this scenario is that it is too general.

Who is this someone? What is he, a soldier, a civilian?
Was this someone forced to do it, or not?
Who are this someone’s enemies? Are they civilians, soldiers?
What is the scenario? Is it peacetime? War?
Where is the scenario? Is it a mall? A battlefield?
What are the circumstances of the scenario? Is the someone’s party winning or losing, and how stacked are the odds?

I do not think I, or anyone, can judge your scenario adequately, Spock, without you filling up those details. It was flawed from the beginning.

God bless.

 

[Spock]

Not if the poster was just stating what he/she believed.

I know what they believe. If they want me to accept their belief, then they need substantiate it. Plain “claims” don’t mean much.

Do you know WHY psychopaths kill? I will give you a hint: “psycho-”. The only reason they do what they do is because of those “thought-crimes.”

Nonsense. Thoughts do not matter. Actions do.

Actually, according to my Concise Oxford American Dictionary and my Webster dictionary, they mean the same thing.

The pairs: “absolute” - “relative” and “objective” - “subjective” do NOT mean the same.

 

[Spock]

Maybe you didn’t like his development of the argument, but there is something to the first cause argument. For example, why was there a Big Bang 14 billion years ago? The whole universe was compacted into a tiny black hole and then exploded and here we are talking about it on CAF. What caused this explosion to happen and how did man’s consciousness and self-awareness come about? Don’t scientists and almost everyone else look for causes?

Sure they do. And when there is no explanation, they simply say: “We don’t know”.

 

[Spock]

The problem with this scenario is that it is too general.

It was left vague and general for two reasons. First, to show that the details matter. Some people say that “stealing is always wrong”, there can be no mitigating circumstances. (These are the “absolutists”.) Others want the circumstances to be clarified. (These are the “relativists”.) Same principle applies here. In order to make a value judgment, you need the details - obviously.

But there is a second aspect to it. Even if you have the details, it also matters if you agree with the bomber, or not. One man’s hero is another man’s terrorist.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

It was left vague and general for two reasons. First, to show that the details matter. Some people say that “stealing is always wrong”, there can be no mitigating circumstances. (These are the “absolutists”.) Others want the circumstances to be clarified. (These are the “relativists”.) Same principle applies here. In order to make a value judgment, you need the details - obviously.

And so again your example is flawed, because no one can judge your scenario adequately because of that lack of detail. Thank you for acknowledging that.

But there is a second aspect to it. Even if you have the details, it also matters if you agree with the bomber, or not. One man’s hero is another man’s terrorist.

Yes of course, you will be right, one man’s hero will always be another man’s terrorist. But in the end, it is irrelevant.

Let’s say, in a hypothetical “Holy War,” a Catholic hijacks a Saudia Airline full of Muslims and slams it into the Burj Al Mamlakah like what happened in the September 11 attacks. Of course, there will be fanatics that will celebrate and say that what that terrorist did is right. And yet the Catholic theologians will not agree, it will be declared as a heinous terrorist attack. And in the long run, the Catholic theologians will be right, and anyone and everyone else who disagrees will be wrong, because the inerrant, infallible teachings of the Catholic Church are behind those Catholic theologians, and in turn, God, the Author of all morality, is behind those teachings, not the fanatics.

God bless.

 

[sidbrown]

And when there is no explanation, they simply say: “We don’t know”.

Not always. Sometimes they create scenarios which cannot be experimentally verified, such as the multiverse theory.

 

[4Horsemen]

Not always. Sometimes they create scenarios which cannot be experimentally verified, such as the multiverse theory.

You seem to be interested in cosmology. If you haven’t read this book, it’s a must:

New Proofs for the Existence of God – Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer. I’m still trying to wade through it. The metaphysical arguments are worth reading.

 

[kentuckyliz]

Jesus taught us to blow up the other cheek.

 

[ignatius777]

Jesus taught us to blow up the other cheek.

What???

 

[Spock]

And so again your example is flawed, because no one can judge your scenario adequately because of that lack of detail. Thank you for acknowledging that.

I don’t know what is your point here. The example was created for a specific purpose, and it fulfilled that purpose. To repeat, it shows that “absolute morality” (decoupled from the details) is nonsense. Without the details a moral judgment is impossible.

Yes of course, you will be right, one man’s hero will always be another man’s terrorist. But in the end, it is irrelevant.

Let’s say, in a hypothetical “Holy War,” a Catholic hijacks a Saudia Airline full of Muslims and slams it into the Burj Al Mamlakah like what happened in the September 11 attacks. Of course, there will be fanatics that will celebrate and say that what that terrorist did is right. And yet the Catholic theologians will not agree, it will be declared as a heinous terrorist attack. And in the long run, the Catholic theologians will be right, and anyone and everyone else who disagrees will be wrong, because the inerrant, infallible teachings of the Catholic Church are behind those Catholic theologians, and in turn, God, the Author of all morality, is behind those teachings, not the fanatics.

Well, apart from the fact that the assertion (that the Catholic Church’s teachings are “inerrant” and “infallible”) is just a naked assertion, there is a different aspect of this.

Just how can you explain to the fanatics and extremists that they are wrong? How can you convice them? They can pick and choose which passages of the Bible they will accept as literally true, just like the proponents of slavery did. This is what is a serious problem of the Holy Scriptures. It is ambiguous, it needs to be “interpreted”.

 

[sidbrown]

You seem to be interested in cosmology. If you haven’t read this book, it’s a must:

New Proofs for the Existence of God – Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer. I’m still trying to wade through it. The metaphysical arguments are worth reading.

I saw Father Spitzer on the Larry King show with Stephen Hawking. Yes, although it was an interesting show, the arguments presented by Father Spitzer did not seem to be all that new to me. Anyway, we might want to start a thread on this, perhaps in the apologetics section. Let me know if you are interested to start a thread on this book.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I don’t know what is your point here. The example was created for a specific purpose, and it fulfilled that purpose. To repeat, it shows that “absolute morality” (decoupled from the details) is nonsense. Without the details a moral judgment is impossible.

And, sorry, I too am not sure what is your point.

There is no such thing as “absolute morality decoupled from the details.” Morality depends on the details. Morality is the application of moral standards on the real world. It is like saying “there is no absolute technology without matter,” for technology is the application of science on the real world. It is stating the obvious.

Well, apart from the fact that the assertion (that the Catholic Church’s teachings are “inerrant” and “infallible”) is just a naked assertion, there is a different aspect of this.

Just how can you explain to the fanatics and extremists that they are wrong? How can you convice them? They can pick and choose which passages of the Bible they will accept as literally true, just like the proponents of slavery did. This is what is a serious problem of the Holy Scriptures. It is ambiguous, it needs to be “interpreted”.

Fanatics and extremists, by definition, are NOT being very objective. You have to convince them first to look at things objectively.

Good luck with doing that

God bless.

 

[4Horsemen]

I saw Father Spitzer on the Larry King show with Stephen Hawking. Yes, although it was an interesting show, the arguments presented by Father Spitzer did not seem to be all that new to me. Anyway, we might want to start a thread on this, perhaps in the apologetics section. Let me know if you are interested to start a thread on this book.

Since I’m reading this book (among others!) on and off, I can’t really say much about the argumentation at this point. One thing I like is Father Spitzer’s section on God as the Unconditioned Reality on which all conditioned realities ultimately depend. Of course it has the flaor of Aquinas’ First Cause argument. I also like his discussion of an initial singularity.

As for starting a thread, you might want to stay in the philosophy section. There are some people with science and philosophy backgrounds who I’m sure would be interested. When the book first came out, there were a few threads already in reference to Father Spitzer and Richard Dawkins. The thread would be interesting if the original post contains an argument between two scientists/philosophers with differing ideas. Although I like to read about cosmology, but I’d need to do a lot of catching up to actually argue about specific points. So I can’t start a thread, but if you do, I’d like to keep up with it and possibly add a concept or two if I get any enlightenment.

I know I’m off the morality track, but actually contemporay philosophy in the second half of the book gets into basic principles which are the basis for a moral life.

 

[PAboy57]

explain[/B] to the fanatics and extremists that they are wrong? How can you convice them? They can pick and choose which passages of the Bible they will accept as literally true, just like the proponents of slavery did. This is what is a serious problem of the Holy Scriptures. It is ambiguous, it needs to be “interpreted”.

The Haydock commentary was accepted from my era. I’m sure there is probably some new Catholic commentary on scripture verse.

How big are the fanatics??? Do the have any weapons??? I’m getting too old to run them down to make sure I convinced them. I’m more in peaceful disagreement until I inherit an army, navy, etc.