Morality? What morality?

[inocente]

Not entirely. We feel “shame” and “guilt” after we do certain things that we consider immoral, if morality was individually subjective we wouldn’t feel that, for example.

Didn’t understand, aren’t feelings subjective?

 

[inocente]

Also, the idea that moral statements are just expressions of feelings is flat out incoherent; they’re propositions which can be either true or false. The real question is under what conditions they’re true or false. It’s wildly implausible to think that a moral proposition p is true just in case I believe that p is true.

The problem is that people don’t always agree on what is morally true. For example some folk say use of condoms is always evil and others don’t. It’s really, really hard for either side to accept the other view and probably the more they discuss it the more entrenched they’ll become. Each side thinks they’re objectively right yet they have completely opposite answers, all they can do is shout “you’re wrong” at each other, which brings into question the whole idea of moral objectivity.

 

[Betterave]

Yes, by definition. The definition doesn’t mention morality. No point making up your own definition and then accusing others of failing to understand. No point at all.

You’re completely ignoring my point: you are assuming you understand the definition. You don’t. I clearly didn’t make up my own definition. I merely explained the one given.

Right. You regard something as immoral (although others disagree); therefore it’s immoral for everyone since you say so, and that proves there’s an objective morality.

LOL! What are you talking about? Where did I make that argument?

If right and wrong are universal and fixed for all time yet we have no way of knowing if we’re there yet then it’s just a pipe dream, an excuse for moral imperialism.

Why is that?? Why isn’t it an important feature of reality that we should take care to acknowledge as such??

It’s very hard for us not to think of our own morality as the most enlightened ever, but we do that subjectively and relative to our own morality.

Is that so? …

 

[Betterave]

You said: “Lying does not consist simply in saying something that is untrue.”
As far as I know a lie is: “a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement.”

Daniel: I fear you haven’t the first clue about Catholic moral philosophy and you don’t want to learn. You are belligerent and arrogant and self-righteous. If you don’t want to modify your behaviour, I’m afraid I’m just going to excuse myself from this inane conversation. Peace be with you.

(If you really don’t know what is wrong with your little argument, please ask. But please think about it for yourself before doing so: your error should be quite obvious.)

 

[Betterave]

The problem is that people don’t always agree on what is morally true. For example some folk say use of condoms is always evil and others don’t. It’s really, really hard for either side to accept the other view and probably the more they discuss it the more entrenched they’ll become. Each side thinks they’re objectively right yet they have completely opposite answers, all they can do is shout “you’re wrong” at each other, which brings into question the whole idea of moral objectivity.

The problem is that people don’t always agree on what is true in general; therefore the whole idea of objective reality is brought into question. But only for people who don’t understand that disagreement does not imply no right answer.

 

[Betterave]

So it is not true that the Catholic Church has consistently opposed slavery.

Sure, but so what? Do you think she should have? Why?

And how does anyone explain the fact that Catholic priests and bishops held slaves in the USA and I don’t see where there were any objections to that?
I don’t deny that the Catholic Church has opposed slavery in recent times. However, it is not clear to me that this was the consistent view. Even in the New Testament, slaves are told to be subject their Masters and there was not a call for them to be free.

You’re right, it’s not a simple issue and American Catholics were certainly guilty of immoral slave-holding and of rationalizing those sins. But that hardly shows that morality is subjective, does it?

 

[sidbrown]

Sure, but so what? Do you think she should have? Why?

Becasue I don;t see the justification for the white European male to hold the black African female in slavery.

 

[awatkins69]

The problem is that people don’t always agree on what is morally true. For example some folk say use of condoms is always evil and others don’t. It’s really, really hard for either side to accept the other view and probably the more they discuss it the more entrenched they’ll become. Each side thinks they’re objectively right yet they have completely opposite answers, all they can do is shout “you’re wrong” at each other, which brings into question the whole idea of moral objectivity.

So the answer is to say that they’re both right, and that for one it’s okay and for the other it’s wrong?

I don’t understand how disagreement disproves the existence of objective morality. One of them is right. p or not-p, yes?

 

[Betterave]

Becasue I don;t see the justification for the white European male to hold the black African female in slavery.

Sure, but who does? Dissident American Catholics of the 19th century? So what? They were wrong and we all know it.

 

[inocente]

You’re completely ignoring my point: you are assuming you understand the definition. You don’t. I clearly didn’t make up my own definition. I merely explained the one given.

I gave definitions from the first three dictionaries found by google, which you say I misread by failing to understand the specific moral implications. Here they are again, please tell me exactly how I’m misunderstanding the moral point none of them make.
*
“Suicide: The process of purposely ending one’s own life.”

"Suicide (Latin suicidium, from sui caedere, “to kill oneself”) is the act of a human being intentionally causing his or her own death.”

“Suicide: the act of killing yourself intentionally, or a person who has done this.”*

LOL! What are you talking about? Where did I make that argument?

I paraphrased you.

Why is that?? Why isn’t it an important feature of reality that we should take care to acknowledge as such??

If right and wrong are universal and fixed for all time yet we have no way of knowing then it’s not a feature of reality, let alone important.

Is that so? …

Darned tooting.

 

[inocente]

So the answer is to say that they’re both right, and that for one it’s okay and for the other it’s wrong?

I don’t understand how disagreement disproves the existence of objective morality. One of them is right. p or not-p, yes?

The problem is that people don’t always agree on what is true in general; therefore the whole idea of objective reality is brought into question. But only for people who don’t understand that disagreement does not imply no right answer.

Some people say use of condoms in marriage is evil, others not. Both sides can argue a rational case yet they disagree.

Some people say cheeseburgers are evil (unhealthy, involve breeding and killing animals on an industrial scale, etc.). Again, they can argue a rational case yet others disagree.

Some people say dancing is immoral, I’ve seen some on CAF say all pop music is evil, even once (not on CAF) that saxophones are evil, the rationality having something with the seductive quality of music.

In each case one group is not just making a moral judgment but is bringing something into the moral domain which others don’t even see as a moral question. We could do this with just about anything – red lights are immoral because they stop traffic and are associated with red-light districts.

Morality is bound up with feelings and beliefs, and what’s moral to one group may not be to another, even though each group thinks it’s right and the other wrong. Maybe there just might be a correct answer to every possible moral question, maybe saxophones are indeed universally evil for all time, but if no one can know what’s the correct answer objectivity doesn’t have any meaning, it’s angels on a pinhead, indistinguishable from subjective.

 

[Betterave]

I gave definitions from the first three dictionaries found by google, which you say I misread by failing to understand the specific moral implications. Here they are again, please tell me exactly how I’m misunderstanding the moral point none of them make.
*
“Suicide: The process of purposely ending one’s own life.”

"Suicide (Latin suicidium, from sui caedere, “to kill oneself”) is the act of a human being intentionally causing his or her own death.”

“Suicide: the act of killing yourself intentionally, or a person who has done this.”*

First, you are simply misunderstanding the use of this word, which restricts it to morally culpable actions. Second, you are misunderstanding the weight of the words “purposely” and “intentionally” - these refer to direct intentions to kill oneself, such that the immediate end/purpose of one’s act is death. (This point has already been covered repeatedly.)

I paraphrased you.

No you didn’t! Where?

If right and wrong are universal and fixed for all time yet we have no way of knowing then it’s not a feature of reality, let alone important.

That is complete nonsense: if they are, they are. “If they are, they’re not” is completely nonsensical. Seriously.

Darned tooting.

And that, my friend, is about the full extent of your ‘argument.’

 

[Betterave]

Some people say use of condoms in marriage is evil, others not. Both sides can argue a rational case yet they disagree.

Some people say cheeseburgers are evil (unhealthy, involve breeding and killing animals on an industrial scale, etc.). Again, they can argue a rational case yet others disagree.

Some people say dancing is immoral, I’ve seen some on CAF say all pop music is evil, even once (not on CAF) that saxophones are evil, the rationality having something with the seductive quality of music.

In each case one group is not just making a moral judgment but is bringing something into the moral domain which others don’t even see as a moral question. We could do this with just about anything – red lights are immoral because they stop traffic and are associated with red-light districts.

Morality is bound up with feelings and beliefs, and what’s moral to one group may not be to another, even though each group thinks it’s right and the other wrong. Maybe there just might be a correct answer to every possible moral question, maybe saxophones are indeed universally evil for all time, but if no one can know what’s the correct answer objectivity doesn’t have any meaning, it’s angels on a pinhead, indistinguishable from subjective.

That’s nice, but you’re still just committing the same fallacy.

 

[inocente]

First, you are simply misunderstanding the use of this word, which restricts it to morally culpable actions. Second, you are misunderstanding the weight of the words “purposely” and “intentionally” - these refer to direct intentions to kill oneself, such that the immediate end/purpose of one’s act is death. (This point has already been covered repeatedly.)

That explains it. You want the action to be immoral, so you read that into the definition then say I’m the one who doesn’t understand.

No you didn’t! Where?

Hang on, if I didn’t would there be any point in asking where? :whacky: Anyhow, click on the arrow buttons in the quotes to follow the train backwards. When you get to post #467 you’ll see me quoting you from post #455 and then paraphrasing you.

That is complete nonsense: if they are, they are. “If they are, they’re not” is completely nonsensical. Seriously.

Here’s another definition, which I’ll admit is a risky strategy given the history of this conversation: Reality – “the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be”.

If we have no way of knowing a fact then it can’t be a real fact.
Seriously.

That’s nice, but you’re still just committing the same fallacy.

And that, my friend, is about the full extent of your ‘argument.’

 

[Betterave]

That explains it. You want the action to be immoral, so you read that into the definition then say I’m the one who doesn’t understand.

Wrong. Re-read what I wrote. This has nothing to do with what I personally want. You really are being disingenuous here, aren’t you?

Hang on, if I didn’t would there be any point in asking where? :whacky:

Again, you’re being disingenuous here, aren’t you? In case you seriously just don’t understand: you didn’t; but I can still ask where you mistakenly think that I did. Wow, huh? Mind-blowing stuff.

Anyhow, click on the arrow buttons in the quotes to follow the train backwards. When you get to post #467 you’ll see me quoting you from post #455 and then paraphrasing you.

An inaccurate paraphrase isn’t really a paraphrase - the appropriate term in this case is caricature.

Here’s another definition, which I’ll admit is a risky strategy given the history of this conversation: Reality – “the state of things as they are, rather than as they are [merely] imagined to be”.

Nothing wrong with that definition. And before you get confused, that’s NOT because I don’t WANT there to be anything wrong with it.

If we have no way of knowing a fact then it can’t be a real fact.
Seriously.

That seriously doesn’t follow.

And that, my friend, is about the full extent of your ‘argument.’

LOL! Correct. And it actually is a sound argument: you commit a fallacy; I point out that your position is based on your committing a fallacy. It’s pretty simple.

 

[sidbrown]

Sure, but who does? Dissident American Catholics of the 19th century? So what? They were wrong and we all know it.

Was St. Paul a dissident?

 

[Betterave]

Was St. Paul a dissident?

No.

 

[Betterave]

‘typo’ correction:

Again, you’re being disingenuous here, aren’t you? In case you seriously just don’t understand: you didn’t; but I can still ask where you mistakenly think that you did. Wow, huh? Mind-blowing stuff.

(Sorry; you’re confused enough without me throwing throwing the wrong pronoun at you like this. )

 

[sidbrown]

No.

Why was St. Paul not a dissident when he told slaves to be subject to their masters, but Catholic clergy who agreed with that in the Americas were dissidents?

 

[davidv]

Why was St. Paul not a dissident when he told slaves to be subject to their masters, but Catholic clergy who agreed with that in the Americas were dissidents?

He (Paul) was obedient to Peter.