Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[PraiseChrist]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the immorality among some of the clergy in the history of the Church. My mistake, sorry

 

[Tomdstone]

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

OK. Thanks.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

You need to provide links to actual documents. Your “Motu Proprio” from Paul III is precisely contradictory to the official encyclical from Paul III.

Sublimus Dei

Pope Paul III (Topic: the enslavement and evangelization of Indians)

To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction.

The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office ‘Go ye and teach all nations.’ He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith.

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

[Dated: May 29, 1537]

papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

Until you demonstrate otherwise, I will consider your other purported sources to be spurious. They in no way align with the official Church documents I have read and studied.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Canon 3 – Synod (not Council) of Gangra:

If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.

[This canon is framed in accordance with the doctrine of the Apostle, in 1 Timothy 6:1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And again the same Apostle teaches his disciple Titus that he should exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. Titus 2:9-10 These texts are likewise cited by Balsamon and Zonaras.]
newadvent.org/fathers/3804.htm

By way of explanation, a Synod does not establish Church doctrine, it only clarifies doctrine – in this case the “doctrine” found in 1 Timothy 6:1 regarding a Christian’s responsibility to their lawful “master.”

Far from condoning chattel slavery, what it does is exhort those who are legally bound by some “debt” or legal proscription to the service of their master, to live out the obligations of the law.

This, in no way, legimates the “owning” of slaves in the modern sense in which slaves are owned as chattel.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Slavery and Dum Diversas: how 'bout you post exactly the magisterium said on slavery?

In fact: how about you post links and quotes from the documents?

Otherwise, I could very easily say: the Church states that ownership of guns is prohibited.

And when you ask where the Church specifically taught this, I say:

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,

 

[PRmerger]

Thomas Aquinas on torture of those who have fallen away from Catholicism:

Surely, by now, after being here on the CAFs for as long as you have, in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics as long as you have, you know that…Thomas Aquinas is NOT part of the magisterium.

Yes?

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

 

[Tomdstone]

Otherwise, I could very easily say: the Church states that ownership of guns is prohibited.

And when you ask where the Church specifically taught this, I say:

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,

You are wrong and it is difficult to take you seriously.

 

[Tomdstone]

Until you demonstrate otherwise, I will consider your other purported sources to be spurious. .

You can do so if you wish. However, you will be in error as all this is well documented and actually is readily available from many internet sources.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You can do so if you wish. However, you will be in error as all this is well documented and actually is readily available from many internet sources.

There are many things which are “readily available from many internet sources.” That alone does not make them true.

As to "well documented,” well, that is a whole other matter.

You haven’t shown what those documents actually demonstrate. They don’t show what you think they do.

 

[Tomdstone]

Canon 3 – Synod (not Council) of Gangra:

By way of explanation, a Synod does not establish Church doctrine, it only clarifies doctrine – in this case the “doctrine” found in 1 Timothy 6:1 regarding a Christian’s responsibility to their lawful “master.”

Far from condoning chattel slavery, what it does is exhort those who are legally bound by some “debt” or legal proscription to the service of their master, to live out the obligations of the law.

This, in no way, legimates the “owning” of slaves in the modern sense in which slaves are owned as chattel.

It does not condemn slavery as being immoral.

 

[Tomdstone]

Canon 3 – Synod (not Council) of Gangra:

This, in no way, legimates the “owning” of slaves in the modern sense in which slaves are owned as chattel.

If what you say is true, how does one explain the fact that in the early twelfth century, Radulphus, Archbishop of Rheims taught that slaves should be subject to their masters and not withdraw from their service and he based his teaching on what was decreed at the Council of Gangra?
Guibertus, Abbot of Nogent-sous-Coucy (1053-1124): De vita sua.
L.III, c.10. .Migne Patr. Lat. 156,932-3.

 

[Tomdstone]

There are many things which are “readily available from many internet sources.” That alone does not make them true.

As to "well documented,” well, that is a whole other matter.

You haven’t shown what those documents actually demonstrate. They don’t show what you think they do.

Well, then tell us what the following document demonstrates:
Gregory I Pastoral Rule: Slaves should be told…. Not to despise their masters and to recognise that they are only slaves.
goodreads.com/book/show/1763876.The_Book_Of_Pastoral_Rule

 

[Tomdstone]

As to "well documented,” well, that is a whole other matter…

in the Visigothic kingdom in 633
A.D., the fourth Council of Toledo, presided over
by St. Isidore of Seville, declared that if clergy were having
forbidden relations with foreign women or their own
female slaves then such women
were to be taken away by the Bishop and put up for
sale as slaves.
Canon 42. Mansi 10, 630

 

[Tomdstone]

Otherwise, I could very easily say: the Church states that ownership of guns is prohibited.

And when you ask where the Church specifically taught this, I say:

…
Motu Proprio 1548,

I don’t see anything in Motu Proprio which states that the ownership of guns is prohibited:
"
… By reason of our pastoral office, we gladly attend to
the troubles [due to the lack of slaves] of individual
Christians, as far as we can with God’s help; and having
regard to the fact that the effect of a multitude of slaves
is that inherited estates are enriched, agricultural property
is better looked after and cities are extended, and desiring
to provide security against loss for the people as well as
their profit, of our own free will we approve and confirm
the above-mentioned enactments and orders… ; and
nevertheless, as a greater precaution [we decree] that each
and every person of either sex, whether Roman or nonRoman,
whether secular or clerical, and no matter of
what dignity, status, degree, order or condition they be,
may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves
whatsoever of either sex, and make contracts about them
as is accustomed to be done in other places, and publicly
hold them as slaves and make use of their work, ana compel
them to do the work assigned to them. And with Apostolic
authority, by the tenor of these present documents, we
enact and decree in perpetuity that slaves who flee to the
Capitol and appeal for their liberty shall in no wise be
freed from the bondage of their servitude, but that notwithstanding
their flight and appeal of this sort they shall
be returned in slavery to their owners, and if it seems proper
they shall be punished as runaways; and we very strictly
forbid our beloved sons who for the time being are conservatori
of the said city to presume by their authority to
emancipate the aforesaid slaves-who flee as previously
described and appeal for their liberty - from the bondage
of their slavery, irrespective of whether they were made
Christians after enslavement, or whether they were born
in slavery even from Christian slave parents according
to the provisions of the common law."
Motu Proprio, November 9,1548. “Confirmatio Statutorum populi
Roman! super restitutionc servorum in Urbe”. Statutorum Almae Urbis
Romae … Rome, 1567, VI, 19(B)

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t see anything in Motu Proprio which states that the ownership of guns is prohibited:
"
… By reason of our pastoral office, we gladly attend to
the troubles [due to the lack of slaves] of individual
Christians, as far as we can with God’s help; and having
regard to the fact that the effect of a multitude of slaves
is that inherited estates are enriched, agricultural property
is better looked after and cities are extended, and desiring
to provide security against loss for the people as well as
their profit, of our own free will we approve and confirm
the above-mentioned enactments and orders… ; and
nevertheless, as a greater precaution [we decree] that each
and every person of either sex, whether Roman or nonRoman,
whether secular or clerical, and no matter of
what dignity, status, degree, order or condition they be,
may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves
whatsoever of either sex, and make contracts about them
as is accustomed to be done in other places, and publicly
hold them as slaves and make use of their work, ana compel
them to do the work assigned to them. And with Apostolic
authority, by the tenor of these present documents, we
enact and decree in perpetuity that slaves who flee to the
Capitol and appeal for their liberty shall in no wise be
freed from the bondage of their servitude, but that notwithstanding
their flight and appeal of this sort they shall
be returned in slavery to their owners, and if it seems proper
they shall be punished as runaways; and we very strictly
forbid our beloved sons who for the time being are conservatori
of the said city to presume by their authority to
emancipate the aforesaid slaves-who flee as previously
described and appeal for their liberty - from the bondage
of their slavery, irrespective of whether they were made
Christians after enslavement, or whether they were born
in slavery even from Christian slave parents according
to the provisions of the common law."
Motu Proprio, November 9,1548. “Confirmatio Statutorum populi
Roman! super restitutionc servorum in Urbe”. Statutorum Almae Urbis
Romae … Rome, 1567, VI, 19(B)

How about a link to the official document? You claimed “well-documented,” but with this particular Motu Proprio, there doesn’t appear to be an official document to be found, just a few incestuous links.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, then tell us what the following document demonstrates:
Gregory I Pastoral Rule: Slaves should be told…. Not to despise their masters and to recognise that they are only slaves.
goodreads.com/book/show/1763876.The_Book_Of_Pastoral_Rule

Well, first of all, what it doesn’t tell us is the the word “slaves” meant precisely the same to Gregory as it does to us today.

Substitute the word “servant” for slave, and the meaning appears the same. Even Jesus said almost the the same thing when he observed that we should see ourselves more as “worthless servants” than as “masters.”

So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’"
Luke 17:10

 

[Peter_Plato]

It does not condemn slavery as being immoral.

Neither does it condemn employment contracts, prison sentences and the authority of governments to incarcerate or take away someone’s liberty and possessions when they commit a crime. So what?

Is a contract binding you to an employer, a contract to pay off a debt or having to serve a prison sentence – even for the rest of one’s natural life – for commission of a crime, immoral?

Essentially, the endorsement of slavery in the documents you cited (the official ones, in any case) amount to morally permitting those who have committed crimes against certain political entities to be bound to the service of the monarchies or political entities they offended.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, first of all, what it doesn’t tell us is the the word “slaves” meant precisely the same to Gregory as it does to us today.

Substitute the word “servant” for slave, and the meaning appears the same. Even Jesus said almost the the same thing when he observed that we should see ourselves more as “worthless servants” than as “masters.”

So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’"
Luke 17:10

Indeed.

Racial slavery: inherently evil.
Indentured servitude: NOT inherently evil.

Now, if someone wants to start a thread on whether indentured servitude needs to be principled, go for it!

 

[NowHereThis]

What you are is saying is just that morallity is good for the society to be efficient. However, y still provide no objective ground, why a given person should follow morality. Opportunism is all too easy, and tricky opportunists are always often able to avoid societal sanctions a and live their lives happily to their advantage, at the expense of society.

The fact that people want morality to be objective is one of the proofs for its transcedent origin.

Why is that the test for the objective nature of what I’m proposing? As a Catholic, do you believe that Catholicism is not objectively true because you haven’t managed to convince every Protestant and atheist of why they should be Catholic?

 

[NowHereThis]

To keep the building analogy active, I think trust, as you describe it, is more like a pillar of moral life than the foundation for it.

To arrive at the real foundation for morality, we need to ask the question, “Why should I be moral?” The proper, as in sufficient, answer to that question will get us to the “foundation” of morality.

We wouldn’t, I don’t think, claim that we ought to be moral so that we can trust others.

The reason we wouldn’t claim that is because, morally speaking, we wouldn’t want to trust that blindly. We would only want to trust those who are worthy of our trust, i.e., those who act in a morally trustworthy way.

That would mean trust itself requires something else to support and justify it, which is morality, properly understood.

Ergo, trust cannot be the foundation for morality since trust, itself, must sit on or be founded upon something else.

Again, the question to be asked is, “Why should I be moral?”

That question wouldn’t be answered by, “So I can trust others,” unless you believe simple blind trust of anyone is the greatest possible good achievable by any moral agents.

I already said that trust was for the sake of cooperation. If I’m untrustworthy, others will not cooperate with me.