Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Peter_Plato]

And this remark is the sign that you don’t understand the difference between “absolute” and “objective” morality. You really should learn more.

Obviously, since you don’t even understand what moral absolutism IS. I will help you. To declare that action “X” is immoral under any and all circumstances would be a “absolutist” statement. Example: “masturbation is evil under any and all circumstances”. Or “artificial birth control is wrong under any and all circumstances”. The phrase “under any and all circumstances” is the hallmark of a “morally absolutist statement”. Do you understand? Or “homicide is wrong under any and all circumstances”. Not even catholics would go THAT far.

Nah. You are creating a strawman out of absolute morality in order to make it appear insanely irrational.

The correct term for something which is “immoral under and all circumstances” would be an act that is intrinsically immoral. That would imply that there exist no plausible circumstances which would legitimize “action X.”

It would be correct to characterize as “absolutely” immoral the murder of innocent human beings. That would mean murder (the unwarranted and intentional killing) of innocent humans (those who have been intentionally killed without a justifiable reason) is **always wrong **because any circumstances which would permit killing would be allowed under the conditions of warranted, unintentional or justifed. Any sane persons, even catholics, WOULD go so far as to insist that the murder (wanton killing) of innocents is always wrong.

Absolutists can also claim that under certain circumstances action X is always wrong precisely because that, too, is an absolute statement. The use of the word “always” makes it so.

Note: An absolutist need NOT claim that action X is always wrong under all circumstances. All that an absolutist needs to claim is that action X is always wrong under certain circumstances or under all circumstances in which human beings can possibly find themselves in. An absolutist need not claim that this is always true of all moral acts – some moral acts may not have that character to them.

Objective morality simply means that the truth of moral claims is found in objective facts which are available to all moral agents as opposed to claims by subjectivist relativists who insist that morality is entirely and solely a subjective matter – i.e, completely determined by or fundamentally grounded in the subjectivity of individuals with no objective possible basis for making moral determinations.

Inocente comes perilously close to this when he insists that one’s conscience is always the final arbiter of moral decisions. The reason he gets no cigar, however, is that he isn’t claiming that conscience is necessarily dependent upon subjective criteria for its formation. Someone could claim that only a properly formed conscience can be legitimately called “conscience” in the first instance, since a malformed conscience might be just an amalgam of urges, wants, desires and such, which means it wouldn’t actually fit the definition of what a conscience is or why it is authoritative.

It is entirely possible to subscribe to objective morality AND claim there are some moral acts which are ALWAYS or absolutely right or wrong given specific conditions, circumstances or motives by the agents undertaking them.

I would submit that this is basically the Catholic position because inherent in the position is claim that all moral acts have three dimensions or aspects to them:

1. The rightness or wrongness of the act itself including its ends or consequences.
2. The circumstances surrounding or leading up to the commission of the act.
3. The motives of the agent in carrying out the act.

No act can be assessed only with reference to the first dimension – the rightness or wrongness of the act itself – precisely because all moral acts involve morally responsible agents carrying them out (thus 3 MUST be considered) and all moral acts occur within a defined situation or sequence of events (thus 2 MUST also be considered.)

The means, logically speaking, that ONLY where NO possible circumstances or motives of the agent can justify the act can ANY act be called intrinsically or absolutely immoral. 2) and 3) must always be considered and therefore a moral determination cannot be made without reference to them.

 

[Tomdstone]

We just plain don’t have the right to kill people

Catholic clergy bless soldiers who go out in time of war to defend their country by shooting and killing the enemy. The crusaders were blessed by the clergy. Catholics are allowed to kill in self defense. Further, heretics and witches were burned at the stake with the approval of the Church. The Church allowed capital punishment in the past, but now it seems like it has changed its teaching on capital punishment. There was an article in the local Catholic newspaper recently stating that you cannot be a good Christian and support the death penalty.
If the person in question is a mass murderer, then there is a reason why he may be subject to the death penalty.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…witches were burned at the stake with the approval of the Church.

You will have to provide source material to show this claim is true. Certainly, that is a commonly held notion, but merely because a lot of people think it does not make it true – unless, of course, you are an epistemological relativist who thinks the “truth” is merely what a lot of people think. If so, then there is no point discussing the matter with you because you want home field advantage, the right to move goalposts and to set the ground rules of the game.

I have found better ways to waste my time.

 

[PRmerger]

The Church allowed capital punishment in the past, but now it seems like it has changed its teaching on capital punishment.

Tom, for it to have changed its teaching on capital punishment it would have to proclaim, “Capital punishment is never justified”.

Can you offer an example from the Catechism, which is the sure norm of the faith, which states that the death penalty is never warranted?

This is what I know the CCC states: 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

 

[Tomdstone]

ABC is intrinsically wrong.

Since ABC is intrinsically wrong, would the Vatican ever allow Catholic nuns in dire circumstances to use the birth control pill to avoid the consequences of being raped? Intrinsically wrong means wrong in any and all circumstances even in dire circumstances?

 

[Tomdstone]

You will have to provide source material to show this claim is true. Certainly, that is a commonly held notion, but merely because a lot of people think it does not make it true – unless, of course, you are an epistemological relativist who thinks the “truth” is merely what a lot of people think. If so, then there is no point discussing the matter with you because you want home field advantage, the right to move goalposts and to set the ground rules of the game.

I have found better ways to waste my time.

Joan of Arc.
Bruno.

 

[Tomdstone]

Tom, for it to have changed its teaching on capital punishment it would have to proclaim, “Capital punishment is never justified”.

Can you offer an example from the Catechism, which is the sure norm of the faith, which states that the death penalty is never warranted?

This is what I know the CCC states: 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

. I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
—Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999

 

[PRmerger]

. I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
—Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999

LOL!

I am sorry, but a homily said, even by a pope, is not to be construed as “the Catholic Church teaches”.

 

[PRmerger]

Joan of Arc.
Bruno.

Who was it who burned Joan of Arc?

 

[PRmerger]

Since ABC is intrinsically wrong, would the Vatican ever allow Catholic nuns in dire circumstances to use the birth control pill to avoid the consequences of being raped? Intrinsically wrong means wrong in any and all circumstances even in dire circumstances?

It would be, provided that it is a non-abortifacient, permissible.

Contraception is intrinsically immoral because all consensual acts of intercourse must be open to life.

Victims of rape do not consent to the act of intercourse, therefore there is no obligation to be open to life.

 

[Tomdstone]

It would be, provided that it is a non-abortifacient, permissible.

Contraception is intrinsically immoral because all consensual acts of intercourse must be open to life.

The correct term for something which is “immoral under and all circumstances” would be an act that is intrinsically immoral.

There are circumstances where the use of ABC is allowed, so it can’t be intrinsically immoral,

 

[DeckerdS]

Catholic clergy bless soldiers who go out in time of war to defend their country by shooting and killing the enemy. The crusaders were blessed by the clergy. Catholics are allowed to kill in self defense. Further, heretics and witches were burned at the stake with the approval of the Church. The Church allowed capital punishment in the past, but now it seems like it has changed its teaching on capital punishment. There was an article in the local Catholic newspaper recently stating that you cannot be a good Christian and support the death penalty.
If the person in question is a mass murderer, then there is a reason why he may be subject to the death penalty.

Just please do try to put yourself in the Church’s shoes before you become too judgemental. Now it ain’t easy because it’s all over the place and it’s been present through so many cultures and ages. You have some very tyrannical and violent people there in Europe in past times. Cannibles and so forth in other parts. I mean it’s been a messy damn world. Trying to get them to pay attention at mass instead of plotting global domination or screwing their neighbor’s spouse you see. Well, if it’s so easy to get people to stop it then just show how.

 

[Solmyr]

The correct term for something which is “immoral under and all circumstances” would be an act that is intrinsically immoral. That would imply that there exist no plausible circumstances which would legitimize “action X.”

Like performing masturbation. Or any sexual act without being “open” to procreation.

It would be correct to characterize as “absolutely” immoral the murder of innocent human beings. That would mean murder (the unwarranted and intentional killing) of innocent humans (those who have been intentionally killed without a justifiable reason) is **always wrong **because any circumstances which would permit killing would be allowed under the conditions of warranted, unintentional or justifed. Any sane persons, even catholics, WOULD go so far as to insist that the murder (wanton killing) of innocents is always wrong.

And you also exhibit the lack of understanding or a desire to change the goalposts. “Murder” is a legal term. I was talking about homicide.

I would submit that this is basically the Catholic position because inherent in the position is claim that all moral acts have three dimensions or aspects to them:

1. The rightness or wrongness of the act itself including its ends or consequences.
2. The circumstances surrounding or leading up to the commission of the act.
3. The motives of the agent in carrying out the act.

No act can be assessed only with reference to the first dimension – the rightness or wrongness of the act itself – precisely because all moral acts involve morally responsible agents carrying them out (thus 3 MUST be considered) and all moral acts occur within a defined situation or sequence of events (thus 2 MUST also be considered.)

That is NOT the Catholic approach. The Catholic approach is that SOME acts are intrinsically evil, regardless of the consequences, the circumstances and the motives.

 

[Solmyr]

Contraception is intrinsically immoral because all consensual acts of intercourse must be open to life.

Gotta love these ex-cathedra proclamations.

 

[inocente]

Inocente comes perilously close to this when he insists that one’s conscience is always the final arbiter of moral decisions. The reason he gets no cigar, however, is that he isn’t claiming that conscience is necessarily dependent upon subjective criteria for its formation. Someone could claim that only a properly formed conscience can be legitimately called “conscience” in the first instance, since a malformed conscience might be just an amalgam of urges, wants, desires and such, which means it wouldn’t actually fit the definition of what a conscience is or why it is authoritative.

The CCC still calls it conscience when it makes erroneous judgments, and also says we must never act against our conscience.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

 

[PRmerger]

There are circumstances where the use of ABC is allowed, so it can’t be intrinsically immoral,

It’s not contraception in the moral sense, because it’s not interrupting an act that is supposed to be procreative, Tom.

Please articulate why you think the Church is against ABC, and then we can chat a bit more about rape and contraceptives.

Right now, you seem to have a rather fundamentalist understanding of “ABC is intrinsically immoral”.

 

[o_mlly]

…
I think there can be a non-theistic ground for objective morality. …

I think the statement has an inherent contradiction. In order to claim objectivity – a truth outside individual human experience, the moral system must perdure across people, places and time. Morals that change with the times are grounded in human experience (subjective) and morals that change with the persons in the same situation are merely relative – neither absolute nor objective. The moral relativist is mch like my driver in Italy who, as I yelped when he sped through the universal 8 sided red “Stop” sign in a busy intersection said to me, “Oh, do not worry, the sign is merely advisory for me. I do not have to obey.”

Examining the posts from atheists and agnostics on this thread demonstrates the falsehood that an objective morality can exist absent a transcendent source of Goodness which exists outside time and place. That is not to say that many of the instructions emanating now from a humanistic moral system do not agree with instructions from a Christian system but that those moral instructions that now agree may change in the former but not in the latter.

The morality proposed by the atheists is neither systematic nor universal but personal and relative and, therefore, not objective by definition. Their morality comes from within themselves (fallible reason), changes with time (abortion, euthanasia, suicide), and is predicated on the latest ideas for optimizing or maximizing materialism – ideas that have changed in the past and will change in the future.

 

[o_mlly]

The CCC still calls it conscience when it makes erroneous judgments, and also says we must never act against our conscience.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.“Certain” is an important distinction in the instruction.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the statement has an inherent contradiction. In order to claim objectivity – a truth outside individual human experience, the moral system must perdure across people, places and time. Morals that change with the times are grounded in human experience (subjective) and morals that change with the persons in the same situation are merely relative – neither absolute nor objective. The moral relativist is mch like my driver in Italy who, as I yelped when he sped through the universal 8 sided red “Stop” sign in a busy intersection said to me, “Oh, do not worry, the sign is merely advisory for me. I do not have to obey.”

Examining the posts from atheists and agnostics on this thread demonstrates the falsehood that an objective morality can exist absent a transcendent source of Goodness which exists outside time and place. That is not to say that many of the instructions emanating now from a humanistic moral system do not agree with instructions from a Christian system but that those moral instructions that now agree may change in the former but not in the latter.

The morality proposed by the atheists is neither systematic nor universal but personal and relative and, therefore, not objective by definition. Their morality comes from within themselves (fallible reason), changes with time (abortion, euthanasia, suicide), and is predicated on the latest ideas for optimizing or maximizing materialism – ideas that have changed in the past and will change in the future.

Indeed.

If we make the rules, then we are not bound by them. We can change them ad lib.

Imagine playing a board game with your child that she’s created. She says, “You can’t land on a red square.”

Fine.

But now she needs to land on a red square to win.

So she says, “Ok. Now you can land on a red square!”.

Since she made the rules, she is certainly free to change them, eh?

She is not bound by anything except her own interests.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And you also exhibit the lack of understanding or a desire to change the goalposts. “Murder” is a legal term. I was talking about homicide.

And homicide is defined as the deliberate and unlawful killing of another person. Now the question of homicide being always wrong is going to depend upon the word “unlawful” and the findings relative to the deliberate. If the law is a just one and the act was deliberate, then, yes, committing homicide would always be wrong, although how wrong would remain an open question depending upon the circumstances and motives.

That is NOT the Catholic approach. The Catholic approach is that SOME acts are intrinsically evil, regardless of the consequences, the circumstances and the motives.

No, not “regardless” of the consequences, the circumstances, and motives – but wrong even after all those are considered AND intrinsically wrong because no possible circumstances or motives can exist which would justify the act.