Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Peter_Plato]

You argued for consequentialism in post #301. You said “The principle is the same: protect the innocent from unnecessary harm wherever possible”. That was your only principle, your only concern was “protecting the innocent against unprovoked or unjust harm”. That’s consequentialism, since it considers only the consequences.

Once again your logic skills (or lack thereof) get you into serious trouble.

Perhaps consequentialism considers ONLY the consequences, but where have I stated that I ONLY consider the consequences, as opposed to considering the consequences as one of a number of considerations?

To assume that a principle I argued for in Post #301 is the ONLY principle I would argue for is another error on your part, but, alas, not your ONLY one.

I would suspect anyone in their right mind, morally speaking, would argue that protecting the innocent from harm wherever possible is a sound moral one, though surely not the ONLY ONE, since “wherever possible” implies that other considerations might exist which could make it not possible. Ergo, I couldn’t have been arguing that it is the ONLY principle and therefore cannot be a consequentialist.

According to your principle, euthanizing someone with a painful terminal illness would be a moral good, since they are going to die soon anyway and it protects “the innocent from unnecessary harm wherever possible”. That’s not what your Church teaches, so obviously consequentialism is defective.

Once again, your logic fails you. “Painful terminal illness” implies the harm is from the illness being terminal. Pain does not equate to harm. It is possible to save someone from pain but not change the harm done to them one iota. In fact, it is possible to do someone great harm without inflicting any pain on them whatsoever. Therefore, protecting the innocent from unnecessary harm does not equate, necessarily, to sparing them pain.

I do not support euthanasia, which puts to lie your claim that I am compelled by my moral position to support it. You have no clue, apparently, what my moral position is since you cannot make very clear distinctions between what is or is not implied by the use of certain words and definitely have a problem with presuming that if someone argues for a principle that must be the only principle they subscribe to.

You only referred to the article I linked, and then made another very complicated argument (omitted here), as if this is also new to you. Imho ethics shouldn’t involve long complicated arguments, it should be founded on arguments anyone can understand.

I see. “Anyone” meaning those who cannot distinguish between rhetoric and dialectic or between a premise and a conclusion. Or those who do not want to understand because it means admitting they might be wrong.

Capital punishment is self-evidently cruel since it torments its victim. It is self-evidently inhuman since it lacks all compassion and mercy for its victim. It is self-evidently playing God since we’re all God’s children, we belong to God alone. Therefore capital punishment is never a moral good. It’s never a virtue to kill another human being, but may be justified.

The same argument could be made for why it is never a “moral good” to punish anyone for what they do, ever. That would mean all negative punitive actions by any human justice system or parents with regard to their children should never be permitted, because these, like capital punishment, “lack all compassion and mercy for the -]perpetrator/-] victim.”

Since God kills every human being by having commanded mortality, he cannot be virtuous (though he may – according to the incongruous “may be justified” at the end of your post – be justified in having done so.)

 

[o_mlly]

Then we’re agreed that Catholics usually argue against consequentialism.

Defined as JPII did in Veritas Splendor, yes. We do claim that foreseeable consequences do bear on the morality of acts which in themselves are morally neutral, that is not intrinsically evil.

Now you’ve put words in my mouth, I never said anything about condoning or condemning.

No attribution; no “words in the mouth.” I made a statement which I hoped would help you see the the logical error in equivocating the condoning of capital punishment with condemning slavery in the New Testament. We have the former and not the latter.

As neither capital punishment nor slavery are specifically abolished in scripture, if capital punishment is good in some circumstances then logically slavery must also be good in some circumstances. But I think the Church teaches that neither is ever a moral good.

This is faulty logic. Capital punishment is condoned; slavery is not. A leap from these facts to conclude slavery is good sometimes does not follow.

 

[Bradski]

I have posted that removing a person from the lifeboat is permissible but certainly not virtuous. The act of removing one from the lifeboat is not intrinsically evil but morally neutral – although in your unreal hypothetical the sharks certainly and immediately gobble him up. The lives saved (also predicted with certainty) are a greater good than the evil loss of one life, the removal of the one by lightening the boat saves the others but their safety is not brought about by his death.

You are denying the undeniable whilst at the same time defending consequentialism. Throwing a man overboard definitely saves a boat load of children. That is a fact of the hypothetical, so yes, we know the consequences. Again, that is the POINT of a hypothetical: to cut through any excuses about not knowing the consequences so we can see how your arguments stack up.

Trite arguments that ‘they are going to die’ anyway are just that. Trite. Ask yourself if it is worse that one child should drown or fifty. It is obviously best that no child drown, so sacrificing one man is the least worse option.

Our Pope is a human being entitled to his opinion, our Pope is the Bishop of Rome obligated to teach his flock, our Pope when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals is gifted by the Holy Spirit with a special prophetic charisma – he cannot be in error. He has not invoked his special charisma on the morality of the death penalty.

So you are saying that the pope is wrong? Can you confirm that that is exactly what you mean? Because I can’t read that any other way. That you believe that you are right and that the pope is wrong. Which brings up an odd situation that if he should make his position ex cathedra something that you would support at this time you would then oppose.

Societies which have the means, technology and resources, can (and I say should) lock up murderers. Rulers of nomadic societies wandering in the desert looking for the promised-land, living off manna are obligated to maintain civil order and may execute criminals.

So now it’s Jews wandering the desert. What happened to poor societies? And then what level of wealth do you need before some poor schmuck gets topped? We’re down to basic levels of containment which might constitute cruelty. Maybe they can’t afford decent food or an exercise yard. Maybe appalling sanitary conditions. Where do you draw the line and who decides where it should be drawn.

I think you haven’t thought about this in the slightest. I think this argument is a facile attempt to escape the consequences of your personal beliefs. If, as you say, you are lucky enough to have someone like the pope from whom you can learn, it may be a good idea to listen to him. I am, after all, taking his position.

Incarcerating for life an innocent man is wrong so what’s your point – our justice system is fallible? I agree. There we go with that certain knowledge again. Civilian casualties in a just war are to be avoided. That some will die is probable and evil. The alternative, rulers who fail to defend against an unjust war that is winnable, is a greater evil.

If civilian casualties can be avaoided, then they must. Otherwise you are ‘back in the lifeboat’. You have to accept that some children will die. You have to sacrifice a few to save many. The real life examples are legion.

Repentant murderers are freed. There we go with that certain knowledge. How do you know now that the captured “will definitely try to kill you and your colleagues again.”

Are you being serious here? Would you like to guess how many people on death row have repented? Do you know how many would repent if you were in charge and stated that all repentant murderers would be released?

And what do you think that soldiers do if released? Retire from combat? Do they say that they are morally obliged not to take any further part in the conflict?

Again, there appears to have been no thought put into your answers. Even a cursory investigation shows that they don’t stand up.

 

[inocente]

Once again your logic skills (or lack thereof) get you into serious trouble.

Perhaps consequentialism considers ONLY the consequences, but where have I stated that I ONLY consider the consequences, as opposed to considering the consequences as one of a number of considerations?

To assume that a principle I argued for in Post #301 is the ONLY principle I would argue for is another error on your part, but, alas, not your ONLY one.

I would suspect anyone in their right mind, morally speaking, would argue that protecting the innocent from harm wherever possible is a sound moral one, though surely not the ONLY ONE, since “wherever possible” implies that other considerations might exist which could make it not possible. Ergo, I couldn’t have been arguing that it is the ONLY principle and therefore cannot be a consequentialist.

Nice try with the retroactive small print , but it’s the only principle you argued for, and the only principle you used. “Wherever possible” means what it says, in every case which can be achieved.

I suggest we rewind and start afresh. Do you agree that consequentialism is false, and some actions are categorically always good or bad, and there are questions of moral character, and so on as well as consequences?

*Once again, your logic fails you. “Painful terminal illness” implies the harm is from the illness being terminal. Pain does not equate to harm. It is possible to save someone from pain but not change the harm done to them one iota. In fact, it is possible to do someone great harm without inflicting any pain on them whatsoever. Therefore, protecting the innocent from unnecessary harm does not equate, necessarily, to sparing them pain.

I do not support euthanasia, which puts to lie your claim that I am compelled by my moral position to support it. You have no clue, apparently, what my moral position is since you cannot make very clear distinctions between what is or is not implied by the use of certain words and definitely have a problem with presuming that if someone argues for a principle that must be the only principle they subscribe to.*

Perhaps you’ve never experienced prolonged pain, but yes it can do harm. I suspected you wouldn’t argue for euthanasia which is why I used it as an example to show that consequentialism is false, and moral questions require more than one principle to answer.

inocente;13999658:

Imho ethics shouldn’t involve long complicated arguments, it should be founded on arguments anyone can understand.

I see. “Anyone” meaning those who cannot distinguish between rhetoric and dialectic or between a premise and a conclusion. Or those who do not want to understand because it means admitting they might be wrong.

Anyone, meaning when God says ““I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people” I think He may be including everyone, not just contract lawyers.

The same argument could be made for why it is never a “moral good” to punish anyone for what they do, ever. That would mean all negative punitive actions by any human justice system or parents with regard to their children should never be permitted, because these, like capital punishment, “lack all compassion and mercy for the -]perpetrator/-] victim.”

Punishing your child by telling her to go to her room and think about what she’s done lacks “all compassion and mercy for the -]perpetrator/-] victim”?

Very humorous. Did the principle of minimum force really fly straight over your head? Trust me, there’s a difference between sending your daughter to her room and sending her to a firing squad.

Since God kills every human being by having commanded mortality, he cannot be virtuous (though he may – according to the incongruous “may be justified” at the end of your post – be justified in having done so.)

No I don’t think God ordered the deaths of people in a club in Orlando, or that Hurricane Katrina was sent by God as a punishment on New Orleans.

I think mortality has something to do with our cells wearing out.

 

[o_mlly]

You are denying the undeniable whilst at the same time defending consequentialism.

It is a good idea to actually read the posts before launching into a rant. Much of what you post here is just wrong. Or did you take something to help you with your nap that hasn’t quite worn off yet?

Throwing a man overboard definitely saves a boat load of children. That is a fact of the hypothetical, so yes, we know the consequences. Again, that is the POINT of a hypothetical: to cut through any excuses about not knowing the consequences so we can see how your arguments stack up.

This is just pure nonsense. It must be hard to think clearly when one is hungover. Let me clarify for you. There are hypotheticals that are possible (often you can exchange “when” for “if”); unlikely (you cannot substitute “when” for “if”) and impossible (not of any analytical value). Your hypotheticals are impossible and have no instructive value.

Trite arguments that ‘they are going to die’ anyway are just that. Trite. Ask yourself if it is worse that one child should drown or fifty. It is obviously best that no child drown, so sacrificing one man is the least worse option.

Isn’t that “trite” argument yours, friend? If you think it trite, why did you ever advance it? Since several posts ago, after you failed to volunteer, I threw you overboard, why do you ask me again? Do I have to beat you back into the water with a paddle?

So you are saying that the pope is wrong? Can you confirm that that is exactly what you mean? Because I can’t read that any other way. That you believe that you are right and that the pope is wrong. Which brings up an odd situation that if he should make his position ex cathedra something that you would support at this time you would then oppose.

READ THE POSTS. READ THE POSTS. READ THE POSTS. READ THE POSTS. Did I get through yet? And you follow with another impossible hypothesis. Take an antidote and re-post something coherent, please.

So now it’s Jews wandering the desert. What happened to poor societies? And then what level of wealth do you need before some poor schmuck gets topped? We’re down to basic levels of containment which might constitute cruelty. Maybe they can’t afford decent food or an exercise yard. Maybe appalling sanitary conditions. Where do you draw the line and who decides where it should be drawn.

Nomadic tribes living off the earth do not build prisons. Get it?

I think you haven’t thought about this in the slightest. I think this argument is a facile attempt to escape the consequences of your personal beliefs. If, as you say, you are lucky enough to have someone like the pope from whom you can learn, it may be a good idea to listen to him. I am, after all, taking his position.

You may have guessed that I don’t really care what you think. I repeat: READ THE POSTS. READ THE POSTS. READ THE POSTS. READ THE POSTS – I agree with the Pope.

If civilian casualties can be avaoided, then they must. Otherwise you are ‘back in the lifeboat’. You have to accept that some children will die. You have to sacrifice a few to save many. The real life examples are legion.

Do you have a point or just more rambling?

Again, there appears to have been no thought put into your answers. Even a cursory investigation shows that they don’t stand up.

It appears you have not read my answers but respond with only empty rhetoric, acerbic attacks and no principles or logical progression to your thinking. I will call you simply A3, “Angry Atheist in Australia.”

 

[inocente]

No attribution; no “words in the mouth.” I made a statement which I hoped would help you see the the logical error in equivocating the condoning of capital punishment with condemning slavery in the New Testament. We have the former and not the latter.

You said “I think you confuse condone with condemn” but I never said anything about either.

This is faulty logic. Capital punishment is condoned; slavery is not. A leap from these facts to conclude slavery is good sometimes does not follow.

c.f. “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” - 1 Cor 14

 

[inocente]

It must be hard to think clearly when one is hungover.

Take an antidote and re-post something coherent, please.

You may have guessed that I don’t really care what you think.

Do you have a point or just more rambling?

I will call you simply A3, “Angry Atheist in Australia.”

Perhaps anger got the better of you in your post to Brad. Usually when someone resorts to childish insults, it indicates they’re out of their depth and so can do no better.

Perhaps wait a few minutes, and then remove superfluous comments before pressing the submit button, or else just don’t respond?

 

[Bradski]

READ THE POSTS.

I have been. But this is what I read.

If a group of men in a war situation are trying to kill you and your colleagues and are captured and you have nowhere to hold them, you let them go.

If a man murders another, maybe a crime of passion or a robbery gone wrong, and you have nowhere to hold him, you kill him (oh, unless he repents, in which case he’s good to go).

Depending on who you talk to, depending on their interpretation of church teaching, depending on their personal views, you get different answers to different questions. Sometimes wildly different.

I actually agree with some things that you say. But you would disagree with other Catholics. And both you and they would insist that your morality is theistic. That is, a morality based on what God wants you to do. If that is the case, then it is utterly useless unless someone can guarantee that they know exactly what God wants. And can interpret it correctly.

What you and all other Catholics are doing is bringing your own personal interpretation to bear on each of the moral questions. At least, where they may be relevent. Or at least, where you can convince yourself that they may be relevant. That’s obvious because of the different attitudes to different aspects of morality.

Hence there is no ‘theistic morality’ at all. There are ‘theistic moralities’. Yours is different to Peter’s. Is different to PR’s. Is specific to you. Everyone has their own. The best you can say is that it is a personal morality based on theistic principles.

Obviously, there are things that you are supposed to agree on, such as contraception for example. And I say ‘supposed to’ because even then there are Catholic who have their own ideas about it (but of course, they are not real Catholics).

So all these questions, all these examples, all these hypothetical have different answers. But all Catholics seem to try to give what they believe to be the ‘Catholic Answer’. On the apparent belief that these type of questions can be answered only with a theistic morality. And only with a specific Catholic theistic morality.

It is blindingly apparent to me that all questions of morality must be determined on the particular situation as it stands at that time. On the circumstances pertaining at that moment. Does God give unequivocal answers to all questions? Obviously not, so as far as I am concerned, decisions have to be made by us as individuals.

God doesn’t say ‘Well, it depends’. God knows what is right and what is wrong. We don’t. We have to work it out ourselves. And with the exception of some aspects of morality such as masturbation, homosexuality and contraception (which the majority of catholics ignore in any case - in other words, have worked it out the selves), that is what we all do.

If you have an answer to any moral problem, then you won’t get far simply by insisting that your answer is based on a theistic morality. You will need reasons for it. If you insist it is God’s will, then you’ll need to tell me His reasons as well. I won’t ignore them. Because they will be what you understand to be God’s will.

Which is another way of saying ‘your opinion’.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think mortality has something to do with our cells wearing out.

And the resurrection of the body means our cells do not have to wear out.

So cells wearing out (mortality) was the sentence of death on human bodies that need not die – Christ’s glorified human body is proof of that.

 

[e_c]

Nice try with the retroactive small print , but it’s the only principle you argued for, and the only principle you used. “Wherever possible” means what it says, in every case which can be achieved.

I suggest we rewind and start afresh. Do you agree that consequentialism is false, and some actions are categorically always good or bad, and there are questions of moral character, and so on as well as consequences?

Perhaps you’ve never experienced prolonged pain, but yes it can do harm. I suspected you wouldn’t argue for euthanasia which is why I used it as an example to show that consequentialism is false, and moral questions require more than one principle to answer.

Anyone, meaning when God says ““I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people” I think He may be including everyone, not just contract lawyers.

Punishing your child by telling her to go to her room and think about what she’s done lacks “all compassion and mercy for the -]perpetrator/-] victim”?

Very humorous. Did the principle of minimum force really fly straight over your head? Trust me, there’s a difference between sending your daughter to her room and sending her to a firing squad.

No I don’t think God ordered the deaths of people in a club in Orlando, or that Hurricane Katrina was sent by God as a punishment on New Orleans.

I think mortality has something to do with our cells wearing out.

You’re not getting it. Try rereading the exchange and forget that you took a position. Then let us know if you still see a difficulty. There’s not a trace of consequentialism in PP.

I happen to be quite familiar with the idea of minimum force, and I am confident that PP is too. Please assume that folks who are willing to engage in discourse at this level are aware of the basics of what they’re talking about. You might be surprised.

 

[e_c]

I have been. But this is what I read.

If a group of men in a war situation are trying to kill you and your colleagues and are captured and you have nowhere to hold them, you let them go.

If a man murders another, maybe a crime of passion or a robbery gone wrong, and you have nowhere to hold him, you kill him (oh, unless he repents, in which case he’s good to go).

Depending on who you talk to, depending on their interpretation of church teaching, depending on their personal views, you get different answers to different questions. Sometimes wildly different.

I actually agree with some things that you say. But you would disagree with other Catholics. And both you and they would insist that your morality is theistic. That is, a morality based on what God wants you to do. If that is the case, then it is utterly useless unless someone can guarantee that they know exactly what God wants. And can interpret it correctly.

What you and all other Catholics are doing is bringing your own personal interpretation to bear on each of the moral questions. At least, where they may be relevent. Or at least, where you can convince yourself that they may be relevant. That’s obvious because of the different attitudes to different aspects of morality.

Hence there is no ‘theistic morality’ at all. There are ‘theistic moralities’. Yours is different to Peter’s. Is different to PR’s. Is specific to you. Everyone has their own. The best you can say is that it is a personal morality based on theistic principles.

Obviously, there are things that you are supposed to agree on, such as contraception for example. And I say ‘supposed to’ because even then there are Catholic who have their own ideas about it (but of course, they are not real Catholics).

So all these questions, all these examples, all these hypothetical have different answers. But all Catholics seem to try to give what they believe to be the ‘Catholic Answer’. On the apparent belief that these type of questions can be answered only with a theistic morality. And only with a specific Catholic theistic morality.

It is blindingly apparent to me that all questions of morality must be determined on the particular situation as it stands at that time. On the circumstances pertaining at that moment. Does God give unequivocal answers to all questions? Obviously not, so as far as I am concerned, decisions have to be made by us as individuals.

God doesn’t say ‘Well, it depends’. God knows what is right and what is wrong. We don’t. We have to work it out ourselves. And with the exception of some aspects of morality such as masturbation, homosexuality and contraception (which the majority of catholics ignore in any case - in other words, have worked it out the selves), that is what we all do.

If you have an answer to any moral problem, then you won’t get far simply by insisting that your answer is based on a theistic morality. You will need reasons for it. If you insist it is God’s will, then you’ll need to tell me His reasons as well. I won’t ignore them. Because they will be what you understand to be God’s will.

Which is another way of saying ‘your opinion’.

And maybe there are “Lutherans” who are die-hard ultramontanists.

The Catholic Church has a body of teaching. Some know it well, some don’t. Some apply it well, some don’t. Etc. Ok? So?

The “situation morality” you’re espousing… it seems like a good way to do whatever the heck you feel like. Just say that the situation called for it. Unless you want to ground it all in “empathy”… Which is still dependent on one’s own feelings and will. What if I empathize differently than you? Why is your empathy right and my empathy wrong?

 

[e_c]

Morality depends on order, order depends on will. Non-theistic morality, therefore, can only be grounded in human will (or angelic will, for the nitpickers out there).

There are three options.

My own will, based on my own desires. It can take the form of consequentialism or even proportionalism. It can also be straight nihilistic egoism.

Another human will, or group of human wills Basically this is legalism.

A cooperation of wills. Consequentialism or proportionalism again. Can turn into legalism too.

These are the options.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I suggest we rewind and start afresh. Do you agree that consequentialism is false, and some actions are categorically always good or bad, and there are questions of moral character, and so on as well as consequences?

I explained my position in post #324.

Consequentialism isn’t false so much as it isn’t a complete accounting of morality.

I don’t think it makes sense to claim the rightness or wrongness of an act has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what comes about as a result of the act, i.e., its consequences.

What sense is there in saying rape is wrong, but it’s not wrong because of the harm it causes to a woman or child (i.e., the harmful consequences) but for some other reason that has nothing to do with consequences? That doesn’t make sense.

Perhaps you can explain how rightness or wrongness of rape is determined without any reference at all to consequences?

AND keep the explanation very simple because, as you say, “ethics shouldn’t involve long complicated arguments, it should be founded on arguments anyone can understand.”

 

[Bradski]

Morality depends on order, order depends on will…A cooperation of wills.

That would include your will. That is, your interpretation of God’s will. Plus everyone else’s as well. Including those with different gods. Nobody is excluded.

Why would that be a problem? Is there anyone who’s opinions which you would exclude?

 

[PRmerger]

That would include your will. That is, your interpretation of God’s will. Plus everyone else’s as well. Including those with different gods. Nobody is excluded.

Why would that be a problem? Is there anyone who’s opinions which you would exclude?

Yeah. I would exclude people who have the opinion: it is morally acceptable to rape someone.

And so would you.

 

[e_c]

That would include your will. That is, your interpretation of God’s will. Plus everyone else’s as well. Including those with different gods. Nobody is excluded.

Why would that be a problem? Is there anyone who’s opinions which you would exclude?

Inasmuch as the intellect needs the will for its act, yes, it involves one’s own will.

Nothing else would be relevant…?

Several times now I have noticed in these discussions about godless morality a kind of conflation of the theoretical with the practical, so to speak. This is a good example. If I want to know the will of God, what bearing do other interpretations of the will of God have on that? (They are only relevant inasmuch as they are authoritative, which renders them revelations rather than mere interpretations.)

We are looking at the thing as it is, not as it is experienced.

 

[Bradski]

Yeah. I would exclude people who have the opinion: it is morally acceptable to rape someone.

And so would you.

In theory, everyone gets a seat at the table. It’s the opinions we accept or reject depending on the reasons given for and against them.

But you raise a good point. Is it reasonable to accept the opinions of someone on one matter if their opinions on another are abhorrent to you?

Would you exclude people who thought that slavery was OK? Some people who wrote your constitution thought it was. Would you exclude people who thought that sex with children was ok? The church allows mariage to girls who have turned 14. Would you agree with someone’s reasons against genital mutilation if the person making them was a racist?

A reasonable argument stands alone.

 

[Bradski]

Inasmuch as the intellect needs the will for its act, yes, it involves one’s own will.

Nothing else would be relevant…?

Several times now I have noticed in these discussions about godless morality a kind of conflation of the theoretical with the practical, so to speak. This is a good example. If I want to know the will of God, what bearing do other interpretations of the will of God have on that? (They are only relevant inasmuch as they are authoritative, which renders them revelations rather than mere interpretations.)

We are looking at the thing as it is, not as it is experienced.

If there is an authorative interpretation, it must make sense to you. You have to agree with the reasoning (otherwise can you give me an example of something that you consider to be moral where you disagree with the reasons given?).

If there is no authorative interpretation, then do you rely soley on your interpretation? If you do, then you must consider yourself correct in all things. If you don’t, then we are back to needing further (name removed by moderator)ut from others who have reasonable arguments.

 

[Tomdstone]

The church allows mariage to girls who have turned 14.

14 years old does seem to be pretty young. Of course, before 1917, the Catholic church allowed girls of 12 years old to marry.
newadvent.org/cathen/01206c.htm
The article has:
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
If you compare that with the non-theistic or secular rule in the USA, the minimum age to marry is generally 18 without the ;parental consent and generally 16 with the parental consent. In this case the non-theistic secular rule seems to make more sense.

 

[Bradski]

14 years old does seem to be pretty young. Of course, before 1917, the Catholic church allowed girls of 12 years old to marry.
newadvent.org/cathen/01206c.htm
The article has:
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
If you compare that with the non-theistic or secular rule in the USA, the minimum age to marry is generally 18 without the ;parental consent and generally 16 with the parental consent. In this case the non-theistic secular rule seems to make more sense.

I understand that it’s only 14 where local laws allow. Where it may be the custom.

In other words, relative to the area. And as it has changed less than 100 years ago, relative to the time As well