Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Bradski]

Every right-minded person and every wrong-minded person needs the threat of being caught, for the simple reason that, despite your protestations to the contrary, you are not a saint. None of us is a saint (yet) and all of us are subject to temptation and perdition.

Your argument was that you need someone looking over your shoulder to make sure you know that there will be consequences if you do wrong.

Well, how is that working, Charles? Not very well, it would seem. All we get from your side of the fence is that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and this from the largest Christian, God-fearin’ country on the planet. Suffice to say that whether you think it’s needed or not, it ain’t working.

And knowing the consequences of a bad act comes well after determining the morality of said act in any case. And who is going to interpret God’s will on the multitude of moral problems with which we are all faced? Are we back to the little voice inside which seems to whisper different things to different people?

I would hazard a guess that you would admit to being fallible. That you don’t know all the answers. So if you don’t, then can you point me in the general direction of someone who does? Because as sure as God made little green apples, that person better have some reasonable arguments to back up his view.

Maybe you’ll just accept his viewpoint blindly without any investigation because he speaks for God. Or maybe, what you might do is use your God given sense, look at all the pertinent facts and listen to all reasonable arguments before coming to decide if, as far as you are concerned, he is right.

We know that’s what you actually do. We know that because everyone else does it. Nobody accepts anything just because someone says that God told them so. Everybody needs a reasonable argument. If you want to say that it’s God’s reasonable argument then go for your life. It will carry as much weight as it deserves and doesn’t need divine imprimatur…

 

[Tomdstone]

Bad priests and bishops are not an argument that “God watching” is of no avail.

Why not?

 

[Bradski]

Why not?

Well, either they know that God isn’t watching or they don’t think they will be punished.

The first, although it would be surprising, is probably more common than we might think.

The second is either that they believe that they can confess their sins and pull a fast one on God, which I don’t think is credible, or they don’t really believe there will be punishment.

I don’t know about you, but, for example, if I were drawn to sexually assault young children and I thought the punishment would be (not could be, but would be) eternal torment, then I would have myself chemically castrated at the earliest opportunity.

So what is the conclusion? Either some of those who have studied theology and the philosophical arguments for God do not believe in Him, or they don’t believe in eternal damnation.

Can there be any other explanations?

 

[PRmerger]

If I ask if something is right or wrong, then who decides if it is not something obviously covered in scripture or the catechism? We all do, individually.

When all votes are in, then how do we know who has the correct answer? In fact, how do we know if there is a correct answer in the first place?

Sure, but in your worldview you can justify personal moral codes but not moral obligation. There is no, “One ought to do this”. “One ought not do that”. There can only be, “I feel good about myself when I do this.” And “I feel bad about myself when I do that.”

Only believers can justify saying that just and peaceful behaviors are morally obligatory.

Thus, in light of what happened in Orlando this weekend, you can say, “That’s something I would never do!” but you can’t say, “It is the moral obligation of all human persons not to shoot someone because of his sexual orientation.”

Believers can do this because…God.

Stealing is wrong. Well, depends, really, doesn’t it. Killing is wrong. Well, not under all circumstances.

Yes, this is very Catholic.

And we would agree that genocide is ALWAYS wrong. Torture of children for fun is ALWAYS wrong.

Yes?

Does God write it in our conscience? Because what he has written in mine is different to what he has written in yours.

That’s because your conscience is darkened by your rejection of that which is the source of that conscience. You pursue an illusory freedom apart from truth.

 

[inocente]

I’ve often heard it said that while you can be good whether you believe in God or not, God offers the only possibility of a foundation for morality. Supposedly, in the absence of God morality is reduced to mere opinion that is not sufficient to justify judging any act as good or evil.

Moral absolutism is the claim that some acts are always absolutely right or absolutely wrong whatever the circumstances.

For instance, it seems highly reasonable to claim that slavery is absolutely wrong.

But why is it always wrong? It’s not a claim which can be tested by experiment, and although some say it can be proved by philosophical argument, others disagree. It seems the claim has to rest on an authority, and the only absolute authority is God. Therefore God must absolutely prohibit slavery.

The only trouble is that our societies used to keep slaves, and claimed that God never made any such prohibition. It seems they got it wrong and we’re relatively good at interpreting God’s commands. But by the same token, people in two hundred years time will say we got something else wrong and they’re relatively better at interpreting God.

So it seems moral absolutists have to admit that some acts may be absolutely good or bad, they’re just not sure which, while moral relativists have to admit that while they don’t like slavery, it’s just their opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

Moral absolutism is the claim that some acts are always absolutely right or absolutely wrong whatever the circumstances.

Yes.

For instance, it seems highly reasonable to claim that slavery is absolutely wrong.

Indeed.

But why is it always wrong? It’s not a claim which can be tested by experiment, and although some say it can be proved by philosophical argument, others disagree. It seems the claim has to rest on an authority, and the only absolute authority is God. Therefore God must absolutely prohibit slavery.

Correct.

The only trouble is that our societies used to keep slaves, and claimed that God never made any such prohibition. It seems they got it wrong and we’re relatively good at interpreting God’s commands. But by the same token, people in two hundred years time will say we got something else wrong and they’re relatively better at interpreting God.

This is not “trouble” at all. It is only testament that our intellects are darkened by sin.

while moral relativists have to admit that while they don’t like slavery, they can’t prove it’s absolutely wrong.

Egg-zactly.

 

[Bradski]

That’s because your conscience is darkened by your rejection of that which is the source of that conscience. You pursue an illusory freedom apart from truth.

The question always remains unanswered. If we can all be wrong, then to whom do we turn to find out what is right? Well, what a dumb question, Bradski. It’s always God!

OK, so if there is any sort of moral problem, where is this guys who knows God’s will? Where is this oracle? Whomdares hold his hand in the air and says: ‘Me. I’m the one!’

Well, we all know the guy doesn’t exist. So let’s not pretend we do anything other than offer reasonable arguments for all the positions we hold.

And if you haven’t got a reasonable argument, then you need to talk to the next guy, because I won’t be listening.

And if you think that my reasonable arguments carry no weight because I do not believe in your God, then you’re not the person I need to talk to about morality. You either except them on their merits or you can talk to the next guy.

If you think that some things are moraly obligated simply because ‘God’ and you have nothing else with which to back them up, then you have nothing with which to back them up.

No reasonable arguments equals no arguments at all. And ‘God’ is not a reasonable argument. Even God knows He has to have them. Unless you want to insist that God can be unreasonable if He wants.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And knowing the consequences of a bad act comes well after determining the morality of said act in any case. And who is going to interpret God’s will on the multitude of moral problems with which we are all faced? Are we back to the little voice inside which seems to whisper different things to different people?

Generally speaking, we all know the consequences of bad acts before we commit them, not after.

The institution God established to interpret his will is naturally and supernaturally designated the reliable deposit of all moral teachings.

Agreed, the little voice inside us sometimes tells the truth, and sometimes whispers lies. That is no argument against reliable truth telling from above. Adam and Eve heard one voice from God and another from the Serpent. They chose to abide by Satan’s lie. That is no argument against God’s truth.

 

[PRmerger]

The question always remains unanswered.

I doubt this very much.

If we can all be wrong, then to whom do we turn to find out what is right?

Why, we use our faith and our intellect.

Not sure what’s so crazy about that.

OK, so if there is any sort of moral problem, where is this guys who knows God’s will?

He’s right here:

http://www.ewtnnewsonline.com/image...it_Mazur_EWTN_World_Catholic_News_3_30_12.jpg

 

[Bradski]

The institution God established to interpret his will is naturally and supernaturally designated the reliable deposit of all moral teachings.

So you are saying that there is somewhere I can get a definitive answer to ALL moral problems?

Well, I am telling you that such a place does not exist.

All moral problems require reasonable arguments to resolve. Let me know if you can find one that doesn’t.

 

[Tomdstone]

The institution God established to interpret his will is naturally and supernaturally designated the reliable deposit of all moral teachings.

Are you sure that it has been reliable on the issues of torture, slavery and capital punishment by burning alive at the stake?

 

[PRmerger]

Are you sure that it has been reliable on the issues of torture, slavery and capital punishment by burning alive at the stake?

And what magisterial document professed that torture and slavery is moral thing to do?

 

[PraiseChrist]

Yo, where are all the Catholics at??

 

[Tomdstone]

And what magisterial document professed that torture and slavery is moral thing to do?

Torture: Ad extirpanda (authorises the use of certain types of force on heretics. But it does limit how much torture can be applied. Breaking of the legs was not allowed, for example.)
Slavery: Dum diversas
Romanus Pontifex.
Council of Gangra 340
Pastoral Rule 600
Ninth Council of Toledo 655
Council of Melfi 1089
Decretum 1140
Third and Fourth Lateran Councils
Motu Proprio 1548, Paul III: Each and every person…may freely and lawfully buy and sell any slaves…and compel them to do the work assigned to them.

 

[PraiseChrist]

Are you sure that it has been reliable on the issues of torture, slavery and capital punishment by burning alive at the stake?

The very fact that there was so much corruption in the Church (such as slavery, breaking of vows, immoral behavior among Clergy) actually points to its Divine origin. You cannot explain that.

Those who take to heart the teachings of the Faith are the ones who you should be attempting to say are immoral. Try to say that St Pio, St John Vianney, St John of the Cross, St Augustine were immoral. No…you will only point to popes who were gluttons and who broke their vows

 

[Tomdstone]

The very fact that there was so much corruption in the Church (such as slavery, breaking of vows, immoral behavior among Clergy) actually points to its Divine origin.

I don’t see how you can say that approval of slavery was a result of corruption and not a result of official teachings?

 

[Tomdstone]

Thomas Aquinas on torture of those who have fallen away from Catholicism:
“…there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfill what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, STh, II-II, Q. 10, art. 8

 

[PraiseChrist]

Dum Diveras:

The statement by Pope Nicholas refers to just wars against Muslim aggressors. Enslaving captives was a recognized and accepted part of waging war in those times. That laity and clergy were allowed to hold black slaves was a serious error, reflecting the practice of society at the time, allowed because of the misguided belief that enslaved blacks would be better off as slaves to Christian owners rather than to infidels. Its goodness was never taught as infallible doctrine. - Dr. Carroll

However, there are circumstances in which a person can justly be compelled to servitude against his will. Prisoners of war or criminals, for example, can justly lose their circumstantial freedom and be forced into servitude, within certain limits. Moreover, people can also sell their labor for a period of time (indentured servitude).

These forms of servitude or slavery differ in kind from what we are calling chattel slavery. While prisoners of war and criminals can lose their freedom against their will, they do not become mere property of their captors, even when such imprisonment is just. They still possess basic, inalienable human rights and may not justly be subjected to certain forms of punishment torture, for example. Similarly, indentured servants sell their labor, not their inalienable rights, and may not contract to provide services which are immoral. Moreover, they freely agree to exchange their labor for some benefit such as transportation, food, lodging, et cetera. Consequently, their servitude is not involuntary.

The Second Vatican Council condemned slavery (i.e., chattel slavery): Whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery . . . the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed . . . they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator (Gaudium et spes 27; cf. no 29). Unfortunately, what Vatican II said about slavery is of little interest to opponents of Catholicism and Catholic dissenters, except insofar as they think it useful to demonstrate Catholic hypocrisy.

Second quote source:
catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/let-my-people-go-the-catholic-church-and-slavery.html

 

[PraiseChrist]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the immoral behavior some clergy had in the history of the Church

 

[PraiseChrist]

I don’t see how you can say that approval of slavery was a result of corruption and not a result of official teachings?

Sorry, I thought you were talking about some clergy in the history of the Church who broke their vows.