H
Hamlet123
Guest
Before “making my own mind up” one must develop his mind. If he develops a poor conscience you can bit your bottom Marxist he will make poor decision that will hurt himself and others.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
Apart from the ten commandments (or however many you think there may be), there are countless ocassions when you have to make decisions on morality yourself. And they can’t be divinely led because other Catholics will have different views. Unless you want to suggest that you are always right.
You allege countless occasions. Can you give me an example of just one so that I would not what kind of occasions you are talking about that are not covered either by Scripture or the Catechism or the natural law conscience?
Apart from the ten commandments (or however many you think there may be), there are countless ocassions when you have to make decisions on morality yourself. And they can’t be divinely led because other Catholics will have different views. Unless you want to suggest that you are always right.
You allege countless occasions. Can you give me an example of just one so that I would not what kind of occasions you are talking about that are not covered either by Scripture or the Catechism or the natural law conscience?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Perhaps the difference would be that you would not have corroborative support for your decision or, on the other side, you would not have a “proof text” in the broadest sense of the term by which to critique your viewpoint.
A Catholic, for example, would have a Scriptural source, a Magisterial source and a source from orthodox tradition along with other Catholics and the guidance of the Holy Spirit with which to compare their musings about an issue. If all these fundamentally agree with an individual’s own ponderings, all well and good. If none do, that should be a reason to delve more into the issue. If some leeway is found, then the issue is one where legitimate differences may be entertained. I can see nothing but a benefit to having access to such morally sound resources.
It would seem that anyone with the will to make the best moral judgement possible would welcome (name removed by moderator)ut from a number of sound sources. Why is that a problem?
It has never been my understanding that I must believe something to be morally right or wrong “just 'cause” the Church teaches that it is. My responsibility is to fully grasp all the aspects of the issue clearly and make a sound moral decision. That someone disputes Church teaching ought to motivate them to consider what they might have missed in their deliberation. Certainly the Church will be right, but it will be right because of the soundness of its basic position and the carefully applied principles that have developed over 2000 years to extend the basic moral axioms to their logical termini.
I am afraid I do not see how it would be helpful to “be on one’s own” to sort out very complicated moral issues. I find the Church to be an extremely helpful resource, not a crutch. It is a resource because of the very extensive rational development of its position.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
One more point on this.
I believe the Church position on ethical decisions is that a moral issue has at least three dimensions to it.
Likewise, a person greeting another with a kiss might be doing an hospitable act, but if the timing was intended as a betrayal signal to identify the other person, then the circumstances and motives surrounding the act lend an evil character to it.
Given the above, along with a few basic rights, such as right to life, as axioms of morally I think it would be possible for any two clear headed and reasonable individuals devoid of attending moral baggage could come to a very consistent and agreeable set of moral conclusions about most issues.
Suggest an issue for a test run.
I believe the Church position on ethical decisions is that a moral issue has at least three dimensions to it.
- the rightness or wrongness of the act itself
- the circumstances under which the act was undertaken
- the motives of the individual agent
Likewise, a person greeting another with a kiss might be doing an hospitable act, but if the timing was intended as a betrayal signal to identify the other person, then the circumstances and motives surrounding the act lend an evil character to it.
Given the above, along with a few basic rights, such as right to life, as axioms of morally I think it would be possible for any two clear headed and reasonable individuals devoid of attending moral baggage could come to a very consistent and agreeable set of moral conclusions about most issues.
Suggest an issue for a test run.
B
Bradski
Guest
Do you buy free range as opposed to eggs from caged chickens (you need the extra money for the kids)? The only shoes you can buy for your kid are possibly made in SE Asia by low paid workers. Buy them or not? Someone asks you to tell a small lie. Not doing so will result in severe and unfair punishment to someone else. Tell that lie or not?Can you give me an example of just one so that I would not what kind of occasions you are talking about that are not covered either by Scripture or the Catechism or the natural law conscience?
Your daughter has won a prize which will be presented by someone who has views on matters with which you disagree. Can she accept it? Would you steal someone’s gun to prevent them possibly committing a robbery? Your son was caught by a speed camera when rushing home because his wife thought there was someone trying to break in their house. He will lose his job if convicted. Do you say that you were driving?
Now Charles, I’m not really interested in what you would choose in each case. The point is, there isn’t any group of people that would come up with the same answers and they’d all be able to give you honest reasons for whatever choices they made. I’d suggest that there simply isn’t a black and white choice in any case which means that no-one is ‘right’ and no-one is ‘wrong’.
I’d further suggest that you wouldn’t be able to tell if anyone was a Christian or an atheist or a Muslim or any other religion. And if that is the case, and there are many examples of, for example, Catholics making varied choices when asked in various polls about different subjects, then they cannot making their choices dependent upon some fixed morality. They are actually…wait for it…making their own mind up. Just like I do.
So who says who is right and who is wrong?
B
Bradski
Guest
No-one is suggesting that one has to do it from first principles. If you use the church as one of your resources, that’s fine. I use other resources. But the fact remains, to very many questions, there is simply no right or wrong answer and the church will have very little to say in regrd to problems that you may well face every day.
You simply cannot go through life deferring answers to every question that comes up so that you can check back with the hierarchy.
Why would you need a belief in a deity to understand that?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
**I’d further suggest that you wouldn’t be able to tell if anyone was a Christian or an atheist or a Muslim or any other religion. And if that is the case, and there are many examples of, for example, Catholics making varied choices when asked in various polls about different subjects, then they cannot making their choices dependent upon some fixed morality. They are actually…wait for it…making their own mind up. Just like I do.
So who says who is right and who is wrong? **
I think in your case you’re the one who makes the decision. Well, who made you or me or anyone else the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong?
Catholics making varied choices when asked in various polls about different subjects, then they cannot making their choices dependent upon some fixed morality.
As to that part of your answer, the different answers that Catholics make to various polls is not dependent upon their own judgment so much as how they have been schooled by the media and by academia to buy into the corrupt morals of people who are in influential positions.
The Church herself does not present contradictory views on right and wrong, though many Catholics have been poorly catechized about the need to be humble enough to submit their judgment to the authority of Christ and his representatives on Earth.
The several examples that you opposed can be answered by reference to the natural law principle of Do Good and Avoid Evil, which the Catholic Church teaches.
Your daughter has won a prize which will be presented by someone who has views on matters with which you disagree. Can she accept it?
What evil is done by accepting an award, so long as it is not for doing something evil?
** Would you steal someone’s gun to prevent them possibly committing a robbery?**
Since it is unknown for certain whether the person will commit a robbery, what good is accomplished by stealing this person’s property?
Your son was caught by a speed camera when rushing home because his wife thought there was someone trying to break in their house. He will lose his job if convicted. Do you say that you were driving?
No, I don’t say I was driving. I expect the law to take its course and acquit him of wrongdoing, so what good is accomplished by subverting the law? Surely his wife called 911 almost at the same time she called her husband.
You need to come up with better examples.
**I’d further suggest that you wouldn’t be able to tell if anyone was a Christian or an atheist or a Muslim or any other religion. And if that is the case, and there are many examples of, for example, Catholics making varied choices when asked in various polls about different subjects, then they cannot making their choices dependent upon some fixed morality. They are actually…wait for it…making their own mind up. Just like I do.
So who says who is right and who is wrong? **
I think in your case you’re the one who makes the decision. Well, who made you or me or anyone else the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong?
Catholics making varied choices when asked in various polls about different subjects, then they cannot making their choices dependent upon some fixed morality.
As to that part of your answer, the different answers that Catholics make to various polls is not dependent upon their own judgment so much as how they have been schooled by the media and by academia to buy into the corrupt morals of people who are in influential positions.
The Church herself does not present contradictory views on right and wrong, though many Catholics have been poorly catechized about the need to be humble enough to submit their judgment to the authority of Christ and his representatives on Earth.
The several examples that you opposed can be answered by reference to the natural law principle of Do Good and Avoid Evil, which the Catholic Church teaches.
Your daughter has won a prize which will be presented by someone who has views on matters with which you disagree. Can she accept it?
What evil is done by accepting an award, so long as it is not for doing something evil?
** Would you steal someone’s gun to prevent them possibly committing a robbery?**
Since it is unknown for certain whether the person will commit a robbery, what good is accomplished by stealing this person’s property?
Your son was caught by a speed camera when rushing home because his wife thought there was someone trying to break in their house. He will lose his job if convicted. Do you say that you were driving?
No, I don’t say I was driving. I expect the law to take its course and acquit him of wrongdoing, so what good is accomplished by subverting the law? Surely his wife called 911 almost at the same time she called her husband.
You need to come up with better examples.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Just because individuals have differing ideas about right and wrong does not mean there is no right or wrong answer to the questions. Just as modern physicists or biologists might disagree over subtle issues in their fields does not imply no answer exists just because there is dissent over what that might be.
To extend this further, if the cosmological constants that serve to organize and determine the nature of physical reality came to be at the Big Bang instant, then whatever or whoever determined the constants to be as they are is the reason why they are comprehensible and true for us as rational humans living in the universe. If that determining cause of the cosmological constants is God and the reason they are true is because God determined those to be the laws which determine physical reality.
The same is true for the moral order. If God created, not just the cosmos, but the moral agents living in it, then moral truths come from God, just as the cosmological constants originated in God. We are moral beings because our moral nature originated in God - that fact would make us obligated to the moral order, just as the cosmological constants obligate us to, if we are reasonable, understand and work with the laws of physics to get on.
We can choose to ignore the laws of physics and attempt to jump off a cliff to fly because we choose to disbelieve gravity is applicable to us, to our peril. We can, likewise, choose to ignore moral laws that determine our inner being and character, again to our peril. Certainly, moral laws do not have irrevocable causal repercussions the way laws of physics do, but perhaps that is because spiritual or living reality is of a different kind than the material.
We may not need God to understand either laws of physics or ethical principles, but we may need God to have an ultimate purpose for abiding by them.
Science provides insight into what happens around us and how things come about, but it cannot tell us anything about why things are as they are or what we ought to do from here on forward. Those are questions of meaning and purpose. The question of God is a question that concerns purpose and where that is to be derived. If that purpose is embedded into the universe and answers why we are here, then to assume God is unimportant or unnecessary is folly, at best.
A
Aloysium
Guest
my:twocents:
You don’t need a belief in a deity to make moral decisions or to understand the universe.
However, it is because God exists, that this is possible.
Through His Being, there is all being.
All creation emerges from His Word.
Reason and goodness exist because He exists; they are what He is.
Whether you believe or not,
He created the universe as ordered and knowable because He is the Truth.
Bestowing on us, in a finite way, His reason, the universe is knowable by us.
He is Goodness itself, and this goodness He also shares with us.
Through His grace we are able to love.
Through our conscience, He speaks to us.
I currently, would say currently, that one doesn’t need to believe in God to try to be a moral person, because we have reason and a conscience. However, one is much more vulnerable to the lies we tell ourselves.
As the bus ads said, “There probably is no God, now stop worrying and enjoy yourself.” People suffering from neurosis will not be placated by this, because it is a part of their condition. So who will stop worrying? Those bothered by their conscience.
This does not bode well for society, let alone themselves.
G
grannymh
Guest
I understand and agree with your opening statement–
“You don’t need a belief in a deity to make moral decisions or to understand the universe.”
However, my agreement comes from a different perspective which is – The human person is worthy of profound respect.
Would it make sense to say that the human person is capable of profound respect for other humans and essentially profound respect for herself and himself? This capability arises from rational thought and interior conscience which are inherent in human nature.
G
gentle_atheist
Guest
Not some of those that I’ve encountered.
G
grannymh
Guest
That is understandable. However, you are observing actions which, obviously, are important. On the other hand, I am observing human nature itself.Not some of those that I’ve encountered.
J
John_Savage
Guest
You would apply the principles of love and empathy to the many situations not explicitly dealt with in scripture or the catechism. The application of general principles would apply to most social justice questions.
However, we’re far away from the OP. The OP didn’t ask whether people can come up with some principles to apply to different situations, independent of God. The point was, as I understood it, whether those decisions would be an expedient solution to a problem or an aspiration to Truth.
A good analogy might be the rules for a board game. People playing agree to follow them so that they can fun. “Fair” rules that give each an equal shot at winning are more fun, The people playing would not think that the rules are the only way of playing or more than a way to organize the game for the most fun possible (i.e., permanent rules from a transcendent source).
However, we’re far away from the OP. The OP didn’t ask whether people can come up with some principles to apply to different situations, independent of God. The point was, as I understood it, whether those decisions would be an expedient solution to a problem or an aspiration to Truth.
A good analogy might be the rules for a board game. People playing agree to follow them so that they can fun. “Fair” rules that give each an equal shot at winning are more fun, The people playing would not think that the rules are the only way of playing or more than a way to organize the game for the most fun possible (i.e., permanent rules from a transcendent source).
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
John
**A good analogy might be the rules for a board game. People playing agree to follow them so that they can fun. “Fair” rules that give each an equal shot at winning are more fun, The people playing would not think that the rules are the only way of playing or more than a way to organize the game for the most fun possible (i.e., permanent rules from a transcendent source). **
This is a good analogy. Everyone has to obey the same rule book in order for fairness to flourish throughout the game. That is why the Church is called Catholic (Universal). God offers everybody a chance to play by the same rulebook.
**A good analogy might be the rules for a board game. People playing agree to follow them so that they can fun. “Fair” rules that give each an equal shot at winning are more fun, The people playing would not think that the rules are the only way of playing or more than a way to organize the game for the most fun possible (i.e., permanent rules from a transcendent source). **
This is a good analogy. Everyone has to obey the same rule book in order for fairness to flourish throughout the game. That is why the Church is called Catholic (Universal). God offers everybody a chance to play by the same rulebook.
H
Hamlet123
Guest
Well, let’s assume that two people have well developed minds, shall we?
Got faith, got reason; got God.
Keep in mind, “God resist the proud and gives grace to the humble”.
J
John_Savage
Guest
Thanks. God is like the rule book writer. A group of friends buy a game. The players know that a rule book must exist because they sense the need for one and/or know from experience that all games have a rule book. So the first thing they do when opening the box is look for one. The players all acknowledge it and appeal to its authority in a dispute.
In atheism, the friends buy a game and either don’t find a rule book or think they can make a better one and throw out the original. They then come up with rules they think are best, maybe basing some of them on the original playbook. There are rules, but they know the source is themselves. In a dispute, people vote or the strongest one wins.
B
Bradski
Guest
Well, you made choices in some of the examples I gave. Who else can make them except you based on the available information? I’d assume that any decision that you make you are happy with it. so you are the arbiter of your own decisions.
Catholics making varied choices when asked in various polls about different subjects, then they cannot making their choices dependent upon some fixed morality.
‘They have been schooled?’ It seems you don’t include yourself amongst the general population of Catholics. So is your interpretation of morality better than most?
And you don’t think that people other than Catholics would understand that as well?
Your daughter has won a prize which will be presented by someone who has views on matters with which you disagree. Can she accept it?
I wasn’t looking for specific answers. I just wanted some acknowledgement that therev are, in some cases, no right or wrong answers and the the decision that someone makes is entirely relastive to their position. And that includes Christians and it includes Catholics. And it includes you as well because your answer is relative to the facts. There is not ‘correct’ answer that anyone can give that you can say is right or wrong.
In this case, let’s say that your daughter had won a prize for an essay on women’s rights and she will be presented with the prize by the guy who runs Planned Parenthood.
How many Catholics here would allow their daughter to accept it? Even though she hasn’t done anything wrong herself. Would it be right or wrong? Different people make different decisions and they don’t have to refer to scripture to do it. They…wait for it…make their own minds up.
Well, the second two determine the first. And I certainly work on those principles. But I do believe that the Church will tell you that an act is wrong (or right) irrespective of the the circumstances or the motive. Has something changed recently?
B
Bradski
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is very Catholic, Bradski. Not just in some cases, but in lots of cases there is no right or wrong answer.
The “entirely” part is the part where you get this wrong.
H
Hamlet123
Guest
- Status