Morality without God?

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

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.

No, that’s moral relativism, of which you are an advocate.

All Christians make (or should make) decisions based on a moral rulebook that comes from God…

Only atheists get to invent their own moral rulebook.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No, that’s moral relativism, of which you are an advocate.

All Christians make (or should make) decisions based on a moral rulebook that comes from God…

If I understand Bradski’s point correctly even if people refer to scripture to make their decisions there will still be variance in those decisions. Despite best intentions to adhere to the rules of that book not every one will interpret or apply it to every situation the same (which is part of the reason why we have have some different denominations of Christianity, though there are variances even within the denomination).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

If I understand Bradski’s point correctly even if people refer to scripture to make their decisions there will still be variance in those decisions.

Yes. Some people are very good at standing the truth on its head. But this only proves that the worst kinds of lies are usually those we tell ourselves.

When in doubt about how to interpret Scripture, consult the Catholic Church. She validates all truth, whether to be found inside or outside Scripture.

 

[Hamlet123]

Bradski;10428491:

Well, I didn’t know IT was my phrase. I thought you said “what if there were two well developed minds…” Never the less, a well develped mind is one that able to assist the person in attaining happiness - our ultimate goal. Morality is doing good. Morality leads to happiness.

Now as Nicomean will tell you it is a well functioning soul: a virtuous soul (person)has developed a deep love of beauty, love and justice and a comfortable habit of doing good. Not just a habit but a comfortable habit of doing good. Our friend Aristotle’s Nicomian Ethics will do a much better job than me explaining this. But be assured of this, there is no grey area in morallity, it is not relative.

I know of no better tool than the Catholic Church’s teachings on morality found in Part III of the Catechism. It is a must that in an effort to DO the teaching that fuel be supplied to one, that fuel is found in the Sacraments (Part II) made available by Christ sacrifice (Part I) and sustained by prayer (PartIII)

God bless you Bradski, I hope I have not been ascerbic:thumbsup:

 

[Hamlet123]

Hamlet123;10428912:
Prayer should be Part IV… doesn’t take me forever to clear-up a mistake; just close to it

 

[Peter_Plato]

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?

There are two separate issues at play here.

1. The Church will say that some acts are intrinsically right or wrong but that circumstances and motives will mitigate an individual’s guilt or responsibility for their actions. So, you are correct that the Church teaches those acts are right or wrong irrespective of the circumstances or motive, but the circumstances or motives might mitigate the individual’s moral responsibility or culpability in carrying out the act.
2. Let us not confuse basic moral axioms or truths and the priority or weighing of those axioms with determinations concerning how a specific act or decision may be considered in light of those first principles. The principles themselves are typically not in dispute, but how those principles apply in specific circumstances may be at issue. The sanctity and value of human life is not usually contentious, but whether, say, the taking of human life in a war is allowable is subject to debate and can, in fact, be reasonably determined with careful thought and deliberation. Even so, it is possible to end up with some who come down on both sides in a dispute over the validity of war even though these individuals might fundamentally agree on the value of human life. It is the implications of basic moral truths that are the source of the issue, not typically the moral truths themselves, which, in fact, find wide agreement.

 

[Aloysium]

isn’t there only one law - to do God’s will, which breaks down to loving God above all else and loving one’s neighbour as oneself

it is hard enough to do this, but it becomes harder trying to discern how to do that in day-to-day situations

• fortunately, we have a conscience through which God speaks to us
• however, the next problem arises as to how to see through the lies we tell ourselves, and scripture helps inform conscience

as to whether there is morality without God: since God is and morality would not be if not for His infinite goodness and justice, for me the question is like imagining colours if there were no light - irrational

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Aloysium

however, the next problem arises as to how to see through the lies we tell ourselves, and scripture helps inform conscience

When we find ourselves disagreeing with the Church, we can be fairly sure we are lying to ourselves.

 

[Bradski]

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.

If there can be no right or wrong answer, the decision one makes must be relative to the position in which one finds oneself and the facts at hand as one understands them at that time…

You can base your decsion on some religious teachings if you like. But it is still your personal interpretation of those teachings on which you make your decision. And there are simply no rules for the majority of day to day decisions that you personally have to make.

What, for example, is the church’s teachings on acceptable treatment of animals? Can you treat a golilla the same as you’d treat a fish? No guidance there and I’d suggest that there is no right or wrong answer. But it is a moral question, so what other choice do you have except to make the call yourself. God doesn’t come into it at all.

Excepting you say that He will guide your decision. In which case we have to ask why He guides diiferent people in different ways at different times. It would then appears that God himself believes that morality is relative.

All Christians make (or should make) decisions based on a moral rulebook that comes from God.

So how do you interpret the ethical treatment of animals? And why would your answer be different to, say, PR’s?

When in doubt about how to interpret Scripture, consult the Catholic Church. She validates all truth, whether to be found inside or outside Scripture.

What you have been saying, Charles, is that when there is a difference of opinion between an atheist and a Christian, the Christian is always right. And when there is a difference between Christians, the Catholic is always right. And when there is a difference between Catholics…well, you then seem to be the one that’s in the driving seat. What was it about all the ‘other’ Catholics…?

…how they have been schooled by the media and by academia to buy into the corrupt morals of people who are in influential positions.

Lucky that doesn’t apply to you, isn’t it.

 

[Bradski]

The Church will say that some acts are intrinsically right or wrong but that circumstances and motives will mitigate an individual’s guilt or responsibility for their actions.

So the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ is relative. I agree.
Peter Plato;10429879:

The principles themselves are typically not in dispute, but how those principles apply in specific circumstances may be at issue.

See above.

The sanctity and value of human life is not usually contentious, but whether, say, the taking of human life in a war is allowable is subject to debate.

See above.

Even so, it is possible to end up with some who come down on both sides in a dispute over the validity of war even though these individuals might fundamentally agree on the value of human life.

See above.

It is the implications

of basic moral truths that are the source of the issue, not typically the moral truths themselves, which, in fact, find wide agreement.

But again, you are making it easy for yourself suggesting that there are ‘basic moral truths’. Well, every man and his dog knows that. Do not kill, do not steal etc. But other moral conundrums are not covered by scripture. Such as the ethical treatment of animals.

 

[PRmerger]

If there can be no right or wrong answer, the decision one makes must be relative to the position in which one finds oneself and the facts at hand as one understands them at that time…

Sure.

For example, there is no right or wrong answer as to whether one should go to Mass on Saturday or on Sunday.

One can receive communion with one species, or with both.

One can go to confession face to face, or behind a screen…

You can base your decsion on some religious teachings if you like.

Yes.

But it is still your personal interpretation of those teachings on which you make your decision.

Or it can be preference.

And there are simply no rules for the majority of day to day decisions that you personally have to make.

Huh? This appears to be a non-sequitur.

What, for example, is the church’s teachings on acceptable treatment of animals? Can you treat a golilla the same as you’d treat a fish? **No guidance there **and I’d suggest that there is no right or wrong answer. But it is a moral question, so what other choice do you have except to make the call yourself. God doesn’t come into it at all.

This is incorrect.

The Church does provide guidance: we are enjoined to be good stewards of God’s creation.

Excepting you say that He will guide your decision. In which case we have to ask why He guides diiferent people in different ways at different times. It would then appears that God himself believes that morality is relative.

Yes, sometimes morality is relative.

It’s just not *always *relative, (which is a logical inconsistency anyway)

 

[Bradski]

The Church does provide guidance: we are enjoined to be good stewards of God’s creation.

The OP relates to morality without God. Despite the church suggesting that you are meant to be good stewards, you have to decide yourself, without the aid of specific instructions from the church or scripture or pronouncements from the chair, what your moral position is on the patricular ethical treatment of animals.

And there will be the full range of moral positions taken by any given number of Catholics. They will all, including yourself, be making decisions personally. You might say that God is allowing you to make them yourselves.

In other words, morality without God.

 

[Aloysium]

The OP relates to morality without God. Despite the church suggesting that you are meant to be good stewards, you have to decide yourself, without the aid of specific instructions from the church or scripture or pronouncements from the chair, what your moral position is on the patricular ethical treatment of animals.

And there will be the full range of moral positions taken by any given number of Catholics. They will all, including yourself, be making decisions personally. You might say that God is allowing you to make them yourselves.

In other words, morality without God.

i do not see how there could be a “full range of moral positions”

there is one moral position; in doing God’s will, it is expressed in different ways reflecting our personal uniqueness

 

[PRmerger]

The OP relates to morality without God. Despite the church suggesting that you are meant to be good stewards, you have to decide yourself, without the aid of specific instructions from the church or scripture or pronouncements from the chair, what your moral position is on the patricular ethical treatment of animals.

And there will be the full range of moral positions taken by any given number of Catholics. They will all, including yourself, be making decisions personally. You might say that God is allowing you to make them yourselves.

In other words, morality without God.

Firstly, I have always argued that atheists can be moral (that is, they have morality without God). However, when it comes to arguing with some other atheist as to why their position is immoral, atheists can never argue against that. And that leaves men with morals like Hitler and Mao to flourish. An absolute truth is required to present a logical reason why Hitler and Mao can’t do what they believe to be moral.

As to “the full range of moral positions”, that is a wrong distillation of Catholic moral theology, as it applies to stewardship of God’s creation. A limited range of moral positions is permissible.

Torture of animals = bad, under Catholic morality.
Giving a lonely widower a pet for companionship = good, under Catholic morality

Eating animals = permissible under Catholic morality.

So there is a gamut, but it is definitely a limited range of moral positions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter Plato;10429879:

The Church will say that some acts are intrinsically right or wrong but that circumstances and motives will mitigate an individual’s guilt or responsibility for their actions.

So the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ is relative. I agree.

That is not even close to an implication of what I wrote. The rightness or wrongness or neutrality of an act is so absolutely and does not change. It is the culpability of an individual that may be mitigated.

[But again, you are making it easy for yourself suggesting that there are ‘basic moral truths’. Well, every man and his dog knows that. Do not kill, do not steal etc. But other moral conundrums are not covered by scripture. Such as the ethical treatment of animals.

Every man knows there are ‘basic moral truths’ because every man has been endowed with a moral nature by the moral Being that created every man to be a morally responsible agent. A theist has no problem explaining whence the moral nature of human beings derives.

The atheist on the other hand, must explain why human beings are moral when the accidental chemical and physical processes that brought humans into existence are decidedly not so and take not an iota of moral concern for neither individual human beings nor the lot of us. Blind material causation could care less about whether you savagely kill your neighbor or rescue a demented senior from traffic. Our knowledge of basic moral truths does not derive from materistic forces that engender absolutely no qualitative features onto creation. Atheists have no adequate answer as to why a basic moral nature is an aspect of every normal functioning human. Theism comes with that answer embedded as a basic premise.

The natural order, devoid of reason, does not endow a moral character onto irrational creatures. “Every dog” does not know that killing and stealing are wrong. Wild dogs make a life of both. Domesticated dogs have been trained to act “morally,” but that is far from making them discerning moral agents.
[/quote]

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

So how do you interpret the ethical treatment of animals? And why would your answer be different to, say, PR’s?

Could you be more specific. In what way does Catholic morality not address the ethical treatment of animals?

Thank you.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The OP relates to morality without God. Despite the church suggesting that you are meant to be good stewards, you have to decide yourself, without the aid of specific instructions from the church or scripture or pronouncements from the chair, what your moral position is on the patricular ethical treatment of animals.

And there will be the full range of moral positions taken by any given number of Catholics. They will all, including yourself, be making decisions personally. You might say that God is allowing you to make them yourselves.

In other words, morality without God.

I find it astounding how you take leaps of logic from one clear statement - “…God is allowing you to make them yourselves…” - to one that has not even a vague connection - “…morality without God.”

What is it about moral responsibility that has you so puzzled? A moral agent can only be considered a morally responsible agent if that means a certain level of autonomy with regards to decisions. Moral praise or blame can only be assigned to an agent who bears responsibility for their own actions. Moral agency implies autonomy. That fact, however, only means we are free to act according to our moral nature or choose otherwise. That a moral nature is endowed by God does not preclude the possibility that God has also given us an autonomous will to act according to our moral nature or not.

An owner of a business could appoint an employee to act as manager of a location and entrust that employee with all the powers and authority to make appropriate decisions autonomously. What you seem to be claiming is that the employee manager is no longer subject to the owner once they bear responsibility for managing the location. Clearly that is not the case. Neither would the owner have to micromanage every decision of the employee manager in order to maintain authority. The job of manager has been entrusted to the employee who must act autonomously but responsibly “in place” of the owner, mindful of the owner’s interests.

Does a concept such as “in loco parentis” also create confusion in your mind? A caregiver must act as a parent serving the best interests of a child, but that does not give the caregiver carte blanche in terms of doing whatever they want as if the child is “without parents.” The caregiver must be mindful of the parents’ wishes for the child and have the child’s best interests in mind without circumventing the parents’ interests.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski
**
And there will be the full range of moral positions taken by any given number of Catholics. They will all, including yourself, be making decisions personally. You might say that God is allowing you to make them yourselves.**

Yes, that’s called free will. You can play by God’s moral playbook or you can commit many fouls. However, as any football player could tell you, he knows the rules and when he runs afoul of them he will be caught. He cannot throw the rulebook out just because he doesn’t like the rules. In the case of moral choices, the referee (God) will make sure of that through Scripture, the guidance of the Church, and the natural law (common sense).

 

[PRmerger]

Bradski
**
And there will be the full range of moral positions taken by any given number of Catholics. They will all, including yourself, be making decisions personally. You might say that God is allowing you to make them yourselves.**

Yes, that’s called free will. You can play by God’s moral playbook or you can commit many fouls. However, as any football player could tell you, he knows the rules and when he runs afoul of them he will be caught. He cannot throw the rulebook out just because he doesn’t like the rules. In the case of moral choices, the referee (God) will make sure of that through Scripture, the guidance of the Church, and the natural law (common sense).

Indeed. And there is a legitimate diversity of opinion on a multitude of situations. To wit: the great number of threads and discussions on Catholic morality here on the CAFs.

However, the human person is not at liberty to declare that which is moral, only to discern that which is in conformity with the moral law.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed. And there is a legitimate diversity of opinion on a multitude of situations. To wit: the great number of threads and discussions on Catholic morality here on the CAFs.

However, the human person is not at liberty to declare that which is moral, only to discern that which is in conformity with the moral law.

Incidentally, I have been interested in an issue that’s been in the Catholic blogosphere: that of Lila Rose,who at 15 yr old started Live Action, a youth led organization that aims to expose, via undercover visits to Planned Parenthood, the lies of the abortion industry.

Click here to watch one of Live Action’s undercover visits to Planned Parenthood.

Some have criticized this method of fighting for the ProLife movement as being deceptive and immoral. Lying in order to achieve some good is never moral, in some people’s opinion.

On the other hand, some give great praise and approval for Lila Rose’s bravery at exposing the corruption and culture of death in the abortion industry.

Here are 2 Catholic apologists’ very differing opinions.

From Catholic apologist Mark Shea (See here to read his entire argument criticizing Lila Rose’s methods of deception, or what he calls “Lying for Jesus”):

To be sure, some folk are trying to figure out a way to say that lying isn’t really lying when you lie to bad people for Jesus. Various stabs have been made at saying that since it’s not a lie to deflect, mislead, or evade when the Nazis show up looking for the Jews, it’s also not a lie to walk up to somebody you deem to be doing evil, and give a false name, occupation and purpose. According to this theory, you aren’t “leading people into error” (i.e. you aren’t lying to make money, gain power, take vengeance or teach a false conclusion like “Satan is God” but are instead trying to show that PP is evil and stop sex trafficking), so it’s not lying. But this is as persuasive as saying it’s not lying to falsely claim you were miraculously healed of cancer in order to lead a gullible occultist out of his error and to the ultimate good end: Jesus the Way, the Truth and the Life. Good ends don’t make lies into “not-lies” just because we are trying to do a good thing by lying.
What concerns me is that some people, faced with this, frankly and simply acknowledge that, yes, we are talking about lying—and they will go ahead and lie and cheer for Lila Rose when she lies too. I empathize, of course. My own view (which is steadily evolving as my opinions dash themselves against the rock of the Catechism) has, until recently, been much the same. i still think “lying to Nazis” is not something I’m inclined to lose sleep over and is obviously a very venial sin.

The other position:

From Dr. Peter Kreeft, Catholic philosopher extraordinaire:

If lying is always wrong, then it is wrong to lie to a nuclear terrorist (the “ticking time bomb” scenario) to elicit from him where he hid the nuclear bomb that in one hour will kill millions if it is not found and defused. The most reasonable response to the “no lying” legalist here is “You gotta be kidding”—or something less kind than that. Thomas Aquinas said that even torture is sometimes justified; in emergency situations like that; if torture, then a fortiori lying.
If you were watching your son or daughter being raped while you were disarmed and tied up and had only words as weapons, and if there was some lie you could tell to the rapist that would stop him, do you really mean to tell me that you would not tell that lie? If so, I thank God that you were not my father.

I believe that each apologist presents a cogent, thoughtful argument, and there is room for both opinions within the Catholic moral world.