Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Tandem]

This is just an outline, but then I don’t think you are serious.

That is a very serious insult. Maybe you did not mean it to be (I am being charitable)… but it is.

Perhaps it is beyond you because of an unwillingness to make distinctions (like between witness and revelation, and between essence and expression, in this quote).

No, it is not “unwillingness”. No apologist has ever admitted that they only present their private opinion. They all assert that they are God’s mouthpiece. And I am skeptical about it. After all many times they assert diametrically opposing views, and they both assert that it is what God “says”.

When I watch ball games, I see that both teams utter a short invocation, and when they win, they always give praise to God for his benevolent intervention. It does not matter, which side wins, the winners always believe that God was on “their side”.

I would love to see God endorsing one view over the other. And I mean explicitly endorse. So we would know God’s opinion. But that never happens… unfortunately.

 

[inocente]

In the interest of staying on topic, "Non-theistic foundation of morality?,” I suggest that if either one of us wishes to pursue the sidebar topics that have drifted into this thread, one starts another thread.

As long as we’re agreed the Jesus is for everyone.

Question: Does theistic morality offer a more compelling argument than non-theist morality e.g., consequentialism, to determine the morality of this act?

There are many different theistic codes of ethics and many different non-theist codes of ethics.

The rules which you’ve been using could appear in any non-theist morality. The only categorical involved in the theater bombing seems to be do not kill with direct intent, but that can be arrived at using secular logic and in any case you’ve chosen to override it.

I asked about the Holy Spirit earlier because merely checking that an act doesn’t break a set of rules isn’t morality as most people would see it. Knowing right from wrong can’t be encapsulated in rules alone or a computer could do it. Christian morality is grounded in Christ and for the life of me I cannot see the Jesus of the NT ever planting a bomb in a theater and triggering it remotely to kill and maim indiscriminately.

*It seems you would like in error to assign an overriding weight to the Catholic teaching that those in a just war have the “right to use arms to repel aggressors" compared to the teaching that those in a just war have the "right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”

But that is not so. The two teachings are complimentary, not contrary, one to the other. The former authorizes ***defensive ****actions and the latter authorizes ***offensive ***actions against an unjust aggressor. Your interpretation would subordinate or eliminate the legitimate use of offense to end an unjust war. That is not the teaching.

Well there’s your problem npatrol:. Defensive means defending from or resisting an attack. Offensive means actively and aggressively attacking. Planting the bomb in the theater is an aggressive projection of force into enemy territory, no way is it defending or resisting an attack, it is an attack.

In any case, you’ve added a distinction the CCC doesn’t make.

I did not agree (and I wish you stop misquoting me -]a la “you-know-who”/-]) that the bomber kills indiscriminately. I said exactly the opposite and made the typeface bold so one could not miss it! ???

Doesn’t matter what you say, planting a bomb and then triggering it remotely or on a timer means you’ve no idea who gets killed or maimed. Perhaps the soldiers brought their partners and children and perhaps the show is put on by the local orphanage. Bombs are indiscriminate.

Apply the principles:
*
The moral object of the act:* Plant on bomb in a theater in which a large number of the unjust aggressor’s combatant soldiers will be in attendance in order to mitigate the unjust aggressor’s capaccity to do harm. Morally good.
The intent of the bomber: To mitigate the unjust enemy’s capacity to do evil. Morally good.
*Circumstances: * The number of non-combatants is substantially less than the number of combatants.
Foreseeable consequences:

• Unjust aggressor combatants will probably die. Moral evil.
• Non-combatants will probably die. Moral evil
• The unjust enemy’s capacity to do evil will be mitigated. Moral good.
• A greater number of innocents will probably live than unjust combatant who will die. Moral good.
• Bomber will probably live. Moral good.

Double Effect Principles -
Act: Morally good.
*Intention of Actor: * Morally good.
*Proportionality: *Positive - good effects equal or are greater than evil effects.
Good effects proceeds from evil effects: The mitigation of the enemy’s capacity to do evil does not proceed from the deaths of the non-combatants or the bomber.

Again, you’ve made no evaluation in terms of virtue ethics (the moral character of the actor), nor in terms of categoricalism (the duties of the actor) but only in terms of effects (consequentialism).

If one defines “suicide attack” in such a way that the attacker only expects rather than intends to die then the attack may be moral. The other principles, of course, withstanding.
However, the convention use of the phrase “suicide attacker” is more akin to mass murderer. The suicide attacker’s preferred targets have often been non-combatants and the attacker’s intent is to terrorize.

“A suicide attack is a violent attack in which the attacker expects to die in the process. Suicide attacks have occurred throughout history, often as part of a military campaign such as the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of World War II, and more recently as part of terrorist campaigns, such as the September 11 attacks.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack

Morality, as system of values and principles of conduct, is most certainly about justice. One must delineate the values and the principles that render some acts moral and other acts immoral.

We must stop agreeing.

 

[inocente]

So tell me how you know what God wants? When you have a moral problem, how does God tell you the correct answer?

No-one has ever given an answer to this.

When I first read the NT as an adult, it said things about love which went far beyond what I’d seen anywhere else or ever imagined. I mean just in secular terms alone, just about how we can relate to one another. So to me that tells me what God wants. No doubt some others are more sophisticated and refined.

 

[e_c]

No, it is not “unwillingness”. No apologist has ever admitted that they only present their private opinion. They all assert that they are God’s mouthpiece. And I am skeptical about it. After all many times they assert diametrically opposing views, and they both assert that it is what God “says”.

When I watch ball games, I see that both teams utter a short invocation, and when they win, they always give praise to God for his benevolent intervention. It does not matter, which side wins, the winners always believe that God was on “their side”.

I would love to see God endorsing one view over the other. And I mean explicitly endorse. So we would know God’s opinion. But that never happens… unfortunately.

1. Disagreement over something does not mean that there’s no truth in the matter, nor that it is not able to be known. You have to use your brain…
2. The relationship between Providence , intercession, and desires? Sounds like a good thread. Start it and be open.
3. God does not have opinions.

Bradski - I notice that you have conveniently ignored my post answering your challenge. What gives?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The great unanswered…maybe unanswerable question.

John

“Neither” seems like a probable answer to me at this point…

 

[PRmerger]

I said: “no one, not even the Vatican”. It was a very wide, inclusive statement, including the pope, the bishops, the priests… and all.

Fair enough.

Just so we’re clear: there should be no expectation that the Vatican, including the pope and bishops, as well as priests, comment on a crash in the Andes.

I agree one hundred percent. Of course I talk about “in extremis” situations. All I wanted to point out that an allegedly “absolute” law would not allow exceptions, not even in the most extreme cases.

Ah. I see where your confusion lies.

You seem to think that someone was asserting that the moral law against eating someone’s flesh is a moral absolute.

No one was asserting that.

I am delighted that you agree. Welcome to the camp of “moral relativists”.

There seems to be this peculiar absolutism among some moral relativists.

Those of us who endorse theistic foundations for morality have some moral absolutes, but its a…relativistic moral absolutism.

Some things are moral absolutes.

But not everything is morally absolute.

That’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to argue against: we’re usually a Both/And rather than a fundamentalist Either/Or.

 

[PRmerger]

I will be more than happy to discuss these questions, but let’s finish the current topic.

My question is profoundly on the current topic, as well as the larger frame for this thread.

You are a “lapsed Calvinist”. So in your view how does human society determine what is moral?

Where does this morality come from?

Are you still a subscriber to the idea that God exists, Christ is God incarnate but you (rightly) reject the Calvinist view of Scripture?

 

[Aloysium]

And if all this gives us 2 people diametrically opposed views, then who has it right?

We are talking about our relationship with God.
I can’t provide a meaningful response unless I know:
What exactly do you mean by “right”?
When people speak of the spiritual/metaphysical dimension/realm of existence, what do you think they are talking about?
How do you personally determine who is right in such a discussion?

 

[Aloysium]

That is a very serious insult. Maybe you did not mean it to be (I am being charitable)… but it is.

No, it is not “unwillingness”. No apologist has ever admitted that they only present their private opinion. They all assert that they are God’s mouthpiece. And I am skeptical about it. After all many times they assert diametrically opposing views, and they both assert that it is what God “says”.

When I watch ball games, I see that both teams utter a short invocation, and when they win, they always give praise to God for his benevolent intervention. It does not matter, which side wins, the winners always believe that God was on “their side”.

I would love to see God endorsing one view over the other. And I mean explicitly endorse. So we would know God’s opinion. But that never happens… unfortunately.

I mean it; you aren’t seriously seeking God. You come across as having an axe to grind against people.
If you want to know and love God, do that. Since you apparently don’t, that is why “it never happens… unfortunately.”

 

[o_mlly]

… Doesn’t matter what you say, …

Ahhh, there’s the rub. I get it now.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No apologist has ever admitted that they only present their private opinion. They all assert that they are God’s mouthpiece. And I am skeptical about it. After all many times they assert diametrically opposing views, and they both assert that it is what God “says”.

It’s difficult to fathom your point.

Most Christians do not believe they are God’s mouthpiece. Rather, they believe that Jesus is God’s mouthpiece and that Jesus gave to the Church he founded the authority to speak in his name.

It’s true that many “churches” contradict each other, so it must be clear they do not all speak for Jesus. This is the principal tragedy of the Reformation, that too many “founders” of new denominations began to think God spoke through them rather than through the one, true, universal Church Jesus founded.

 

[Tandem]

Just so we’re clear: there should be no expectation that the Vatican, including the pope and bishops, as well as priests, comment on a crash in the Andes.

The question was generally about cannibalism, and the crash in the Andes was just a sad example. I would expect some official teaching about cannibalism starting from the Stone Age all the way until the recent example in the Andes. I don’t think that this is an unreasonable “request”.

There was also a question about “public nudity” and “publicly performed sex”, also from the Stone Age until a modern nudist community - and there was no answer to that either.

You seem to think that someone was asserting that the moral law against eating someone’s flesh is a moral absolute.

No one was asserting that.

Well, it was you, who said that cannibalism is “immoral” (Post #724). If it is “immoral”, then there must be a “moral law” which forbids it. Now, maybe the “moral law” is not absolute, and as such there are circumstances when eating someone’s flesh is acceptable. So what is it? The opposite of a “moral absolute” is a “moral relative”… which is perfectly fine by me. If you say that under some circumstances an action “X” is moral, and under some other circumstances it is immoral, then I welcome you with open arms into the camp of “moral relativists”.

There seems to be this peculiar absolutism among some moral relativists.

Those of us who endorse theistic foundations for morality have some moral absolutes, but its a…relativistic moral absolutism.

Now that is new to me! A “relativistic moral absolutism”? Is that something like the phrase “peacefight”, which was invented by the communist regimes? Or a “virgin whore”?

That’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to argue against: we’re usually a Both/And rather than a fundamentalist Either/Or.

I am not talking about “Catholicism” in general, I am only talking about certain apologists. Those who say both/and “A” and “not A”. The word I would use is not “formidable”, I would say “frustrating” to converse with those people who change their argument as the wind blows, and also deny that they changed anything. Doublespeak, anyone?

Those, who assert that there are “moral laws”, but become strangely “mute”, when they are asked where are those “laws” laid down so everyone could review them?

My question is profoundly on the current topic, as well as the larger frame for this thread.

And I accept that it is your opinion. I also promise that I will entertain it, once we get to some solution pertaining my questions.

You are a “lapsed Calvinist”. So in your view how does human society determine what is moral?

Where does this morality come from?

Are you still a subscriber to the idea that God exists, Christ is God incarnate but you (rightly) reject the Calvinist view of Scripture?

My views are totally irrelevant. I am here to learn, not to evangelize.

But I already stated that the question about “sterile morality” is unanswerable. The three fonts; the “object” (what), the “intent” (why) and the circumstances (how) ALL must be specified in order to answer “is action X moral”? And even that is not sufficient, because you must specify the “ethical framework”. So the proper question would be: “is action X moral in the ethical framework of Z?”.

 

[Tandem]

I mean it; you aren’t seriously seeking God.

Must be awesome to believe that you can peek into someone else’s mind.

 

[Tandem]

It’s difficult to fathom your point.

Most Christians do not believe they are God’s mouthpiece. Rather, they believe that Jesus is God’s mouthpiece and that Jesus gave to the Church he founded the authority to speak in his name.

It’s true that many “churches” contradict each other, so it must be clear they do not all speak for Jesus. This is the principal tragedy of the Reformation, that too many “founders” of new denominations began to think God spoke through them rather than through the one, true, universal Church Jesus founded.

Not even all the Catholic churches agree on very significant questions. And every apologist asserts that they are the ones who correctly “interpret” God/Jesus/the church’s word.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not even all the Catholic churches agree on very significant questions. And every apologist asserts that they are the ones who correctly “interpret” God/Jesus/the church’s word.

This is not correct. Catholic apologists do not “interpret.” We “understand.” The Church alone can interpret God’s word in Scripture.

It is one thing to disagree as to how we understand God’s word; quite another thing to disagree about what the words mean.

For example, Baptists would disagree with Catholics about the words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper, whether they are literal or only figurative. Catholics and Protestants can “understand” those words, but for Catholics only the Church can interpret their literal meaning. Catholics who disagree with the Church’s teachings may do so at the peril of literally ceasing to be Catholic, or of receiving the Eucharist in a blasphemous way. Catholics are not free to “understand” the Church teachings any way they like. That is a Protestant attitude, which admittedly has infected the mentality of many American Catholics in the same way that liberal attitudes toward abortion have corrupted many Catholics when they vote for Catholics who support abortion rights.

You can run down a list of any official teachings of the Church and you will see that they are not to be freely defied by Catholics in good standing with the Church, and when they are, the appropriate measures for discipline are available, especially to popes and bishops whose responsibility it is to protect the authentic word of God.

But perhaps this is grist for another mill in another thread?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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.

I think there can be a non-theistic ground for objective morality. Morality is rooted in our human need to trust each other and thereby facilitate closer cooperation and greater achievements than we could gain by ourselves. Someone who treated morality as mere opinion (and used that for selfish advantage in every situation) would be too changeable to be trustworthy, and wouldn’t receive cooperation, losing out on the gains from said cooperation.

This idea supplies the benefits of positing God as the source of morality (unchanging and negative consequences for failure to act well) without positing a transcendent entity or realm whose mysterious existence is the source of morality.

Thoughts?

Let’s suppose that you and I have the strong need to trust each other. Let’s suppose also that you and I see it clearly that cooperation is advantageous for both of us. Then, which cooperative actions should we perform? (Without opinions).

 

[PRmerger]

Well, it was you, who said that cannibalism is “immoral” (Post #724).

Yes, indeed.

If it is “immoral”, then there must be a “moral law” which forbids it.

You are correct.

Now, maybe the “moral law” is not absolute, and as such there are circumstances when eating someone’s flesh is acceptable.

Yes.

So what is it? The opposite of a “moral absolute” is a “moral relative”… which is perfectly fine by me.

Great!

If you say that under some circumstances an action “X” is moral, and under some other circumstances it is immoral, then I welcome you with open arms into the camp of “moral relativists”.

Sure. We Catholics will gladly join you in the “Cannibalism is ok in extremis therefore it is not a moral absolute to say ‘Cannibalism is always, in every case, for all people, wrong’ camp of moral relativism”.

Now that is new to me! A “relativistic moral absolutism”? Is that something like the phrase “peacefight”, which was invented by the communist regimes? Or a “virgin whore”?

Not at all.

It is just a simple way to say: some things are morally relative (such as cannibalism, stealing, lying) and some things are morally absolute (such as genocide, rape, torturing children for fun).

I am not talking about “Catholicism” in general, I am only talking about certain apologists. Those who say both/and “A” and “not A”. The word I would use is not “formidable”, I would say “frustrating” to converse with those people who change their argument as the wind blows, and also deny that they changed anything. Doublespeak, anyone?

Shoot.

Things were coming along quite nicely. I was rather hopeful when this all began that the inability that was shown in the past to dialogue within the forum rules of charity would evolve.

It’s the smart way to proceed, is it not–if one wants so desperately to return, to learn from one’s mistakes?

sigh.

And I accept that it is your opinion. I also promise that I will entertain it, once we get to some solution pertaining my questions.

Okey-dokey.

I await your answer as a “lapsed Calvinist”. Are you a recent convert from Calvinism? Do you know much about Calvinism still, or, I wonder, are your views are the same as this ex-Calvinist who asserts that this faith was not given to him with his consent?

 

[Tandem]

Yes, indeed.
You are correct.
Yes.
Great!
Sure. We Catholics will gladly join you in the “Cannibalism is ok in extremis therefore it is not a moral absolute to say ‘Cannibalism is always, in every case, for all people, wrong’ camp of moral relativism”.

I agree with you. Cheers! Drank a glass of champagne to celebrate our agreement. click.

It is just a simple way to say: some things are morally relative (such as cannibalism, stealing, lying) and some things are morally absolute (such as genocide, rape, torturing children for fun).

Now that you elaborated, we have quite a bit of common ground to build upon, which is most promising. I especially like that you included lying and stealing among the morally relative actions. So far every apologist I saw adamantly asserted that there are no “white lies”. That every instance of theft is morally wrong. I am glad to see that you disagree. Now how close your views are to the “official” party line, I don’t know, and I don’t even care. After all I have this conversation with YOU, and not with some faceless entity.

Now what about “mercy killing”, when the victim actually asks for being helped into the “hereafter”? There is no malice involved in such an action; on the very contrary it comes from love and respect for the other person’s desire. That would be a major breakthrough. And what about public nudity and publicly performed sex? Or some innocent masturbation? Or having sex which precludes procreation? Are these actions intrinsically “evil”?

I must disagree with your examples of moral absolutes. I agree that there cannot be any possible “justification” to condone “torturing children (or anyone else - even animals) FOR FUN”. But that is not a simple action, you included the “intent” along with the “moral object”. I could come up with a scenario, when “torturing” someone could be justified. The idea of intrinsically “evil” action which says that an action (object) under any and all circumstances and intents is “evil”… no ifs, ands and buts - is what I deny - until I see a valid counter-example. Same with “rape”, under very extreme circumstances it could be justified. Never a preferred action, but sometimes it is necessary (just like cannibalism). As for genocide it might be justifiable if the existence of a sub-group of humans would be a direct threat to the whole humanity. (Very unlikely, of course.)

But I definitely agree that action “X” with intent “Z” can be considered wrong under all circumstances.

I await your answer as a “lapsed Calvinist”. Are you a recent convert from Calvinism? Do you know much about Calvinism still, or, I wonder, are your views are the same as this ex-Calvinist who asserts that this faith was not given to him with his consent?

My conversion is not relevant. We are supposed to talk about the subject and not about each other. Many times the moderators pointed this out. Please, let’s forget about “me”, because I will not answer any personal questions.

As for my Calvinist “heritage”, I still think that the Calvinist approach to the problem of “free will” and “God’s omniscience” is correct - they are mutually exclusive. Of course it is not God’s foreknowledge which prevents our free choices, rather our actions cause God’s knowledge, and as such make God’s knowledge contingent - which is in direct contradiction with the catechism.

And I would like to point out again, that there is no “morality” without having an ethical framework. What is considered “moral” in one ethical framework may very well be considered “immoral” in another. Please observe the word “considered”.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with you. Cheers! Drank a glass of champagne to celebrate our agreement. click.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I especially like that you included lying and stealing among the morally relative actions. So far every apologist I saw adamantly asserted that there are no “white lies”.

That may be true (or not).

However, there is hardly a sane Catholic moralist around who would assert that the moral actor with the proverbial Jew hidden in his closet must disclose this to the Nazi when asked, pointedly, “Are you hiding a Jew in your closet”.

That every instance of theft is morally wrong

Same with the father stealing bread for his starving toddler from a fat, complacent, rich baker.

I must disagree with your examples of moral absolutes. I agree that there cannot be any possible “justification” to condone “torturing children (or anyone else - even animals) FOR FUN”.

Then you do, indeed, have some moral absolutes.

But that is not a simple action, you included the “intent” along with the “moral object”. I could come up with a scenario, when “torturing” someone could be justified.

But I am certain that you cannot come up with one where it would be moral to torture a child for fun.

#moralabsolute

QED.

The idea of intrinsically “evil” action which says that an action (object) under any and all circumstances and intents is “evil”… no ifs, ands and buts - is what I deny - until I see a valid counter-example

Torturing a child for fun.
Wiping out an entire race because of the color of their skin.

But I definitely agree that action “X” with intent “Z” can be considered wrong under all circumstances.

Well, there you go! :clapping:

And I would like to point out again, that there is no “morality” without having an ethical framework. What is considered “moral” in one ethical framework may very well be considered “immoral” in another. Please observe the word “considered”.

We are agreed here.

Some cultures consider it moral to mutilate a woman’s genitals so she cannot enjoy sexual intercourse.

There is no doubt that this is immoral.

Therefore, there exists objective morality.

 

[PRmerger]

Most Christians do not believe they are God’s mouthpiece. Rather, they believe that Jesus is God’s mouthpiece and that Jesus gave to the Church he founded the authority to speak in his name.

Yes. Eloquently stated.