Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Peter_Plato]

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.

The word “certain” carries with it an epistemic quality, as in “known with certainty.” That would mean if you KNOW with certainty something is wrong and you do it anyway, then you have condemned yourself by the certainty of the judgement which informed your conscience. Some things are known with certainty, others not so much. Someone who isn’t certain about his judgement on some matter, and decides to do it in light of the uncertainty isn’t going against his “certain judgement of conscience.”

This is where personal integrity and complete sincerity are very important – self-knowledge and reflection are key to living a moral life. No one ought to “dabble” in morality because that lack of determination, in itself, can be due to a moral failure – otherwise known as moral relativism.

Then again, philosophers distinguish between subjective certainty – the sense of being right that even the most inept thinker might indulge – and epistemic certainty – sure knowledge because all of the relevant questions/issues/concerns have been considered or properly answered.

Murder is certainly morally wrong. There is no wiggling out of that by individuals who deny that because their conscience doesn’t accept that moral fact nor by those who otherwise – with what they suppose is done in “good conscience” – think the moral law doesn’t apply to them.

A political radical who out of a sense of what is “right” for his country or society murders his opponents might be doing so in good conscience but will still be judged for committing an immoral act. I am pretty sure Stalin and Hitler were certain that what they were doing was “right” according to their conscientious commitments to their particular views on the world, but they will still be judged by the objective wrongs they committed, regardless of what the certainty that their malformed consciences insist is right.

You aren’t claiming that if Hitler sincerely and with certainty thought what he was doing was “right” then he had an obligation to do what he did, are you? This seems to follow from your “Conscience is always authoritative” claim.

 

[Tomdstone]

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.

Morality changes for Christians. Take for example the buying and selling of slaves. Or the use of torture to extract a confession from a supposed heretic.

 

[Tomdstone]

A political radical who out of a sense of what is “right” for his country or society murders his opponents might be doing so in good conscience but will still be judged for committing an immoral act.

Some Roman Catholics will say that it would not have been immoral to murder Hitler “out of a sense of what is “right” for his country or society”.

 

[inocente]

Yes. But a white supremacist whose conscience tells him it’s ok to rape a black woman because she’s not really a human being would be, I’m sure, admonished for his belief in your church.

At least he should be.

He wouldn’t even have been invited to join the church until he had served his time, made reparations and had a big change of heart. You have to wonder at how such people develop. For instance men who appear normal, highly educated model citizens, who knew perfectly well the damage they were doing by abusing children. Literally unbelievable.

 

[PRmerger]

Morality changes for Christians.

Yes, sometimes.

That there are moral absolutes is not to be taken as “therefore there are moral absolutes ONLY”.

Sheesh. Why does everyone insert “ONLYs” where none are required?

That’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to argue against–there is so very often the Both/And. It appreciates so very well that a fundamentalist ONLY approach ought not be applied so very many times.

Take for example the buying and selling of slaves. Or the use of torture to extract a confession from a supposed heretic.

Those things were wrong then, and they are wrong today.

 

[PRmerger]

He wouldn’t even have been invited to join the church until he had served his time, made reparations and had a big change of heart. You have to wonder at how such people develop.

So your church doesn’t really follow its own “only moral absolute”?

He was, after all, following his conscience, eh?

For instance men who appear normal, highly educated model citizens, who knew perfectly well the damage they were doing by abusing children. Literally unbelievable.

I’m glad you brought this up—so a Baptist minister who engaged in “abusing children” and claims he was following his conscience would have been doing something completely moral in your church, which has only one moral absolute: to always follow his conscience?

stopbaptistpredators.org/scandals/trinity

That’s an incoherent position to me, but that seems to be what you’re proposing.

 

[inocente]

The word “certain” carries with it an epistemic quality, as in “known with certainty.” That would mean if you KNOW with certainty something is wrong and you do it anyway, then you have condemned yourself by the certainty of the judgement which informed your conscience. Some things are known with certainty, others not so much. Someone who isn’t certain about his judgement on some matter, and decides to do it in light of the uncertainty isn’t going against his “certain judgement of conscience.”

This is where personal integrity and complete sincerity are very important – self-knowledge and reflection are key to living a moral life. No one ought to “dabble” in morality because that lack of determination, in itself, can be due to a moral failure – otherwise known as moral relativism.

Then again, philosophers distinguish between subjective certainty – the sense of being right that even the most inept thinker might indulge – and epistemic certainty – sure knowledge because all of the relevant questions/issues/concerns have been considered or properly answered.

Murder is certainly morally wrong. There is no wiggling out of that by individuals who deny that because their conscience doesn’t accept that moral fact nor by those who otherwise – with what they suppose is done in “good conscience” – think the moral law doesn’t apply to them.

A political radical who out of a sense of what is “right” for his country or society murders his opponents might be doing so in good conscience but will still be judged for committing an immoral act. I am pretty sure Stalin and Hitler were certain that what they were doing was “right” according to their conscientious commitments to their particular views on the world, but they will still be judged by the objective wrongs they committed, regardless of what the certainty that their malformed consciences insist is right.

You aren’t claiming that if Hitler sincerely and with certainty thought what he was doing was “right” then he had an obligation to do what he did, are you? This seems to follow from your “Conscience is always authoritative” claim.

I read the “certain” in the CCC’s “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” as a qualification, meaning we first have to work to become certain.

Yes, a reductio ad Hitlerum was overdue , but it would be wrong to force everyone to act against their conscience just because a madman had mad convictions. At the end of the day, we must each do what we think is right. If we do what we think is wrong, then as the CCC puts it, we condemn ourselves.

There’s a fun parallel between Germany electing Hitler and the USA toying with electing Trump. One said he would make Germany great again, the other that he will make America great again. They both talk of violence against opponents, they’re both certain of their intolerance. Many started out thinking Hitler a harmless joke figure too. Only difference I can see between them is Hitler had a silly mustache and Trump has silly hair. That’s democracy for you.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I read the “certain” in the CCC’s “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience” as a qualification, meaning we first have to work to become certain.

Yes, a reductio ad Hitlerum was overdue , but it would be wrong to force everyone to act against their conscience just because a madman had mad convictions. At the end of the day, we must each do what we think is right. If we do what we think is wrong, then as the CCC puts it, we condemn ourselves.

There’s a fun parallel between Germany electing Hitler and the USA toying with electing Trump. One said he would make Germany great again, the other that he will make America great again. They both talk of violence against opponents, they’re both certain of their intolerance. Many started out thinking Hitler a harmless joke figure too. Only difference I can see between them is Hitler had a silly mustache and Trump has silly hair. That’s democracy for you.

Oh, I think a stronger case can be made for the totalitarianism of the left than for a superficial comparison of Trump and Hitler. I mean if all you have to present the case is silly hair –whether facial or cranial – and “making [insert country here] again,” I think that is about a superficial a case that anyone could ask for. What about the more substantive issues?

I mean Germany didn’t build a wall – actually, France did.

Historically speaking, the social and political policies of the left are far closer to National Socialism in the sense of subjugating all other entities to some NWO Overseeing Entity. Trump only wants to make America great again – presuming by the word “again” that he means as great as it once was. You aren’t suggesting that America was historically like Nazi Germany, are you? He isn’t suggesting taking over the world or creating some dominating world power that subjugated all peoples like the NWO politicos have a mind to.

Superficial similarities don’t make a convincing case.

 

[inocente]

So your church doesn’t really follow its own “only moral absolute”?

He was, after all, following his conscience, eh?

You only get invited into the body of Christ if you’re acceptable to the body of Christ. We don’t let just anyone in.

*I’m glad you brought this up—so a Baptist minister who engaged in “abusing children” and claims he was following his conscience would have been doing something completely moral in your church, which has only one moral absolute: to always follow his conscience?

stopbaptistpredators.org/scandals/trinity*

That’s an incoherent position to me, but that seems to be what you’re proposing.

Not sure what you’ve arguing about, unless you’re claiming that CCC 1790 is not an absolute, and you only need to “obey the certain judgment of his conscience” when you feel like it. After the atheists on this thread appeared to be moral absolutists, it would make my day if a Catholic outed herself as a moral relativist.

PS We could each link lots of articles in trying to cast the blame for child abuse, but let’s not. There are celebrities and politicians and men of every persuasion involved.

 

[PRmerger]

You only get invited into the body of Christ if you’re acceptable to the body of Christ. We don’t let just anyone in.

What if he was already a member? He just kept his racist views to himself?

Not sure what you’ve arguing about, unless you’re claiming that CCC 1790 is not an absolute, and you only need to “obey the certain judgment of his conscience” when you feel like it. After the atheists on this thread appeared to be moral absolutists, it would make my day if a Catholic outed herself as a moral relativist.

Well, you seemed to be positing your Baptist “follow your conscience” as a contrast to the Catholic moral ideology.

Now, it seems that you are saying that your church’s Baptist “follow your conscience” is actually that which the CC teaches–follow your conscience, but have your conscience conformed to the Word of God.

PS We could each link lots of articles in trying to cast the blame for child abuse, but let’s not. There are celebrities and politicians and men of every persuasion involved.

You are so right.

So not sure why you brought it up? What was the point you were trying to make?

 

[o_mlly]

Morality changes for Christians. Take for example the buying and selling of slaves. Or the use of torture to extract a confession from a supposed heretic.

To back up your claim, please cite the Magisterium’s pronouncements on the moral permissibility of the slave trade and the use of torture.

 

[o_mlly]

… Not sure what you’ve arguing about, unless you’re claiming that CCC 1790 is not an absolute, and you only need to “obey the certain judgment of his conscience” when you feel like it. …

The teaching is an absolute that instructs in two ways. One may not act against the certain judgements of one’s own conscience and one ought not to act on the uncertain judgements of conscience. Kreeft’s famous argument against abortion relates the abortionist to the hunter who sees something in the brush and is uncertain whether that something is animal or human. May he kill it?

 

[inocente]

Oh, I think a stronger case can be made for the totalitarianism of the left than for a superficial comparison of Trump and Hitler. I mean if all you have to present the case is silly hair –whether facial or cranial – and “making [insert country here] again,” I think that is about a superficial a case that anyone could ask for. What about the more substantive issues?

I mean Germany didn’t build a wall – actually, France did.

Historically speaking, the social and political policies of the left are far closer to National Socialism in the sense of subjugating all other entities to some NWO Overseeing Entity. Trump only wants to make America great again – presuming by the word “again” that he means as great as it once was. You aren’t suggesting that America was historically like Nazi Germany, are you? He isn’t suggesting taking over the world or creating some dominating world power that subjugated all peoples like the NWO politicos have a mind to.

Superficial similarities don’t make a convincing case.

New World Order Overseeing Entity?

npatrol: Cool, sign me up.

 

[inocente]

What if he was already a member? He just kept his racist views to himself?

Not possible, it’s all done by personal relationships. We have to know him before he would invited to join. Besides which, we’ve people of many ethnicities so he’d probably give himself away.

Well, you seemed to be positing your Baptist “follow your conscience” as a contrast to the Catholic moral ideology.

Never occurred to me, I only said Baptists because I don’t know if it’s a principle for all Christians.

*You are so right.

So not sure why you brought it up? What was the point you were trying to make?*

That some people’s morality is literally unbelievable. I mean we can talk about what to do in the lifeboat or trolley car dilemmas, and can understand other points of view, but I cannot even begin to comprehend what’s going on in the minds of those men.

 

[PRmerger]

Not possible, it’s all done by personal relationships.

That’s ridiculous.

It’s contrary to reason to say that you know the thoughts and beliefs of every single member of your church.

He may have intentionally kept his mouth shut about his belief.

That’s what his conscience told him to do.

Besides which, we’ve people of many ethnicities so he’d probably give himself away.

After he was already a member of your church.

Never occurred to me, I only said Baptists because I don’t know if it’s a principle for all Christians.

But you did know it was a principle for Catholics.

That some people’s morality is literally unbelievable.

:sad_yes:

I mean we can talk about what to do in the lifeboat or trolley car dilemmas, and can understand other points of view, but I cannot even begin to comprehend what’s going on in the minds of those men.

Sin makes you blind.

 

[inocente]

The teaching is an absolute that instructs in two ways. One may not act against the certain judgements of one’s own conscience and one ought not to act on the uncertain judgements of conscience. Kreeft’s famous argument against abortion relates the abortionist to the hunter who sees something in the brush and is uncertain whether that something is animal or human. May he kill it?

I like that example. Of course sometimes there’s not enough time to be absolutely certain, particularly for cops, soldiers and medics. Sometimes a split-second decision is needed, so perhaps the wording taken together with the following sentence is also intended to avoid people beating themselves up after making decisions where certainty wasn’t an option.

 

[o_mlly]

Some Roman Catholics will say that it would not have been immoral to murder Hitler “out of a sense of what is “right” for his country or society”.

I have read that Dietrich Bonhoeffer studied Catholic thinking on tyrannicide in formulating his own ethic and conspiracy to depose Hitler. Bonhoeffer was martyred before his plan could be effected. Others, close to Hitler, were able to act but failed to kill the tyrant.

“Lieutenant Colonel Klaus von Stauffenberg, described as ‘a serious Catholic,’ formed a plot to assassinate Hitler on July 20. He and other members, including Field Marshal Rommel, Field Marshal von Witzleben, and General Beck, knew that Hitler had to be removed from power, and recognized that no regular means of government existed to do so. The only course of action seemed to be justifiable tyrannicide. Von Stauffenberg reportedly met with Cardinal Count Preysing of Berlin to discuss this matter, and his eminence honored the motives and offered no theological objection to restrain him. In so doing, Cardinal Preysing placed his own life in jeopardy with the Gestapo, but was never implicated in the plot.”
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/does-the-church-condone-tyrannicide.html

 

[inocente]

That’s ridiculous.

It’s contrary to reason to say that you know the thoughts and beliefs of every single member of your church.

He may have intentionally kept his mouth shut about his belief.

That’s what his conscience told him to do.

After he was already a member of your church.

Nothing to do with mind reading everyone. Before being invited to join he has to go to a house group, make friends with them, take communion with them, etc. He’d have to be a great actor to hide his feelings so well that even people he hates didn’t notice. Why would he go to all that trouble? Sounds a bit far-fetched, give me an outline of the plot.

But you did know it was a principle for Catholics.

And you did know I never said anything about Catholics. If you do a search, you’ll see I’ve never used the word “Catholic” on this thread until now.

*:sad_yes:

Sin makes you blind.*

True.

 

[PRmerger]

Nothing to do with mind reading everyone. Before being invited to join he has to go to a house group, make friends with them, take communion with them, etc. He’d have to be a great actor to hide his feelings so well that even people he hates didn’t notice. Why would he go to all that trouble?

Yep. There’s quite a few very good actors around.

In fact, that’s the norm, isn’t it? We all put our best face forward, esp around church people.

Sounds a bit far-fetched, give me an outline of the plot.

No. What sounds far-fetched is that you can know the values of all the folks in your church.

Regardless: he’s following his conscience, which is what you said is your church’s only moral absolute.

And you did know I never said anything about Catholics. If you do a search, you’ll see I’ve never used the word “Catholic” on this thread until now.

Not sure what this means.

You sounded originally like you were presenting your Baptist morality in contrast to Catholic morality.

Now, it turns out you’ve been in agreement with Catholicism this whole time: follow your conscience, but have a conscience that is conformed to Christ’s.

The only difference is that you say that this is the Baptist’s ONLY moral absolute.

 

[Tomdstone]

I have read that Dietrich Bonhoeffer studied Catholic thinking on tyrannicide in formulating his own ethic and conspiracy to depose Hitler. Bonhoeffer was martyred before his plan could be effected. Others, close to Hitler, were able to act but failed to kill the tyrant.

“Lieutenant Colonel Klaus von Stauffenberg, described as ‘a serious Catholic,’ formed a plot to assassinate Hitler on July 20. He and other members, including Field Marshal Rommel, Field Marshal von Witzleben, and General Beck, knew that Hitler had to be removed from power, and recognized that no regular means of government existed to do so. The only course of action seemed to be justifiable tyrannicide. Von Stauffenberg reportedly met with Cardinal Count Preysing of Berlin to discuss this matter, and his eminence honored the motives and offered no theological objection to restrain him. In so doing, Cardinal Preysing placed his own life in jeopardy with the Gestapo, but was never implicated in the plot.”
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/does-the-church-condone-tyrannicide.html

So Roman Catholics do not agree as to whether or not murder is intrinsically wrong?
Some say it is OK to murder Hitler, others say no.

Murder is certainly morally wrong. There is no wiggling out of that by individuals who deny that because their conscience doesn’t accept that moral fact nor by those who otherwise – with what they suppose is done in “good conscience” – think the moral law doesn’t apply to them.

A political radical who out of a sense of what is “right” for his country or society murders his opponents might be doing so in good conscience but will still be judged for committing an immoral act…

Is morality a matter of opinion, and not an absolute? According to Roman Catholic teaching, would it have been morally right or morally wrong to have murdered Hitler?