Objective Moral Principles

[ChristRocket]

There are certain moral principles that are easily and objectively proven to be objective - such as murder, theft, rape.

What other’s can we name and how can we prove them as being objectively wrong/right?
Primarily, carnal pleasures, if we can - such as sex, drugs, alcohol.

Also, touching on sex, how do we prove objectively that people should not have sex/masterbate before marriage, without turning to the Bible? When we turn to the Bible, does the topic not automatically become religiously subjective?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There are certain moral principles that are easily and objectively proven to be objective - such as murder, theft, rape.

What other’s can we name and how can we prove them as being objectively wrong/right?
Primarily, carnal pleasures, if we can - such as sex, drugs, alcohol.

They pretty much prove themselves wrong/right.

Moral principles are not just cerebral, they are instinctive.

When in doubt about your reasoning or your instinct, consult of the Bible and the Catechism, which together cannot lead you astray.

Just don’t look to the government or to polls for guidance.

 

[Rhubarb]

I don’t think you’re going to get an “objectively objective” proof for what you want. At least not one that’s particularly moving. Here’s a completely valid argument that can be proven: If the sky is blue, then you shouldn’t masturbate. The sky is blue. Therefore you shouldn’t masturbate.

But it’s not going to do what you want. Someone dead-set against you is going to object to your premises, making even valid and provable arguments useless to convince anyone. Of course, I made the argument super simple and irrelevant to show my point - someone could come up with a much more sophisticated argument to prove what you’re looking for. But the same problem will arise. People can, and will, object to premises they don’t buy.

I think your best bet is to dispense in looking for proofs, and instead focusing on reasons to avoid the mentioned behavior. It’s not a hard proof, but I think an informal set of reasons to avoid a behavior will be more convincing.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

There are certain moral principles that are easily and objectively proven to be objective - such as murder, theft, rape.

What other’s can we name and how can we prove them as being objectively wrong/right?
Primarily, carnal pleasures, if we can - such as sex, drugs, alcohol.

Also, touching on sex, how do we prove objectively that people should not have sex/masterbate before marriage, without turning to the Bible? When we turn to the Bible, does the topic not automatically become religiously subjective?

Statistics show that having sex before marriage severely impacts the success rate for marriage to survive long term. So, if a young person wants a full lifetime commitment, the best way to insure success is to build a loving relationship based on mutual respect, values and interests. Leaving sex for the marriage bed takes all the “confusion” out of relationships in the dating world.

 

[OurLadysServant]

Search the forums for this

It hAS BEEN answered dozens of times already

Its a mortal sin if done freely, in full knowledge, and deliberately. Which means hell if unrepented before death.

Its biblical, church tradition, saints teaching, private revelation, and CURRENT church teaching

There are certain moral principles that are easily and objectively proven to be objective - such as murder, theft, rape.

What other’s can we name and how can we prove them as being objectively wrong/right?
Primarily, carnal pleasures, if we can - such as sex, drugs, alcohol.

Also, touching on sex, how do we prove objectively that people should not have sex/masterbate before marriage, without turning to the Bible? When we turn to the Bible, does the topic not automatically become religiously subjective?

 

[Latias]

I don’t think you’re going to get an “objectively objective” proof for what you want. At least not one that’s particularly moving. Here’s a completely valid argument that can be proven: If the sky is blue, then you shouldn’t masturbate. The sky is blue. Therefore you shouldn’t masturbate.

But it’s not going to do what you want. Someone dead-set against you is going to object to your premises, making even valid and provable arguments useless to convince anyone. Of course, I made the argument super simple and irrelevant to show my point - someone could come up with a much more sophisticated argument to prove what you’re looking for. But the same problem will arise. People can, and will, object to premises they don’t buy.

I think your best bet is to dispense in looking for proofs, and instead focusing on reasons to avoid the mentioned behavior. It’s not a hard proof, but I think an informal set of reasons to avoid a behavior will be more convincing.

A common theme in the philosophical metagame is the “is-ought” problem. Perhaps the OP should read some Hume and explore that issue to elucidate, at least, that there does not exist any facile answer that can silence any secularist critic or demonstrate the authority of moral prescriptions outside of the nearly universal sentiments of natural benevolence.

 

[Nihilist]

There are certain moral principles that are easily and objectively proven to be objective - such as murder, theft, rape.

What other’s can we name and how can we prove them as being objectively wrong/right?
Primarily, carnal pleasures, if we can - such as sex, drugs, alcohol.

Also, touching on sex, how do we prove objectively that people should not have sex/masterbate before marriage, without turning to the Bible? When we turn to the Bible, does the topic not automatically become religiously subjective?

Any thing which increases suffering is a sin. This is the definition of sin. Theft and violence is a sin- it increases suffering. Sexual activity is a sin, because it torments the soul with lust.

Drugs and alcohol may increase suffering- if they lead to addiction, etc. But perhaps not always.

The basis of morality is this- get through life suffering as least as possible, and causing others to suffer as least as possible. Indulging in carnal pleasures normally increases the suffering of the soul, by binding it more to the body.

But, if life is coming to an end (like cancer, or even natural causes), morphine, etc. may serve to reduce suffering, and not be a sin. Similarly, masturbation, while bad in itself, may sometimes help prevent fornication, which is much worse.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Any thing which increases suffering is a sin. This is the definition of sin.

Sin is not defined as an increase in suffering, though suffering often follows sin.

Christ suffering on the cross was not sinful, but rather heroic suffering on an epic scale.

 

[John_Martin]

There are certain moral principles that are easily and objectively proven to be objective - such as murder, theft, rape.

What other’s can we name and how can we prove them as being objectively wrong/right?
Primarily, carnal pleasures, if we can - such as sex, drugs, alcohol.

Also, touching on sex, how do we prove objectively that people should not have sex/masterbate before marriage, without turning to the Bible? When we turn to the Bible, does the topic not automatically become religiously subjective?

Does something like masturbation achieve the final goal of the sperm (a grown up son who knows his God and who will take care of you in your old age when your 401K runs out 10 years early and let you hold your grandson)? No?, then it is immoral because you chose to do something that is ineffective in reaching its proper and final end or goal.

 

[Latias]

Does something like masturbation achieve the final goal of the sperm (a grown up son who knows his God and who will take care of you in your old age when your 401K runs out 10 years early and let you hold your grandson)? No?, then it is immoral because you chose to do something that is ineffective in reaching its proper and final end or goal.

Again, this returns to the “is-ought” problem since one needs to demonstrate that there are “ends” or “teleology”. The concept of natural law has teleology as an integral component, and of course, modern philosophy and science does not provide a friendly environment for teleology.

 

[Nihilist]

Sin is not defined as an increase in suffering, though suffering often follows sin.

Christ suffering on the cross was not sinful, but rather heroic suffering on an epic scale.

Yes. Christ did not suffer for His own sins, but for our sins, for the sins of the whole world.

There is a link between sin and suffering (e.g. the sin of Adam causing disease and death in subsequent generation, the sins of the world causing the death of Christ, the violent father causing his son to suffer, etc.). The link is not always obvious or direct, but it’s always there. Something that ‘made everyone* truly *happy’ could never be a sin.

But personal sin also causes personal suffering. Most sins cause the person who commits them to suffer, even in this world. Thus the thief is plagues by insecurity, the fornicator by degradation, the angry person by unhappiness, etc.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Again, this returns to the “is-ought” problem since one needs to demonstrate that there are “ends” or “teleology”. The concept of natural law has teleology as an integral component, and of course, modern philosophy and science does not provide a friendly environment for teleology.

Both modern science and philosophy provide a friendly environment for human teleology.

What they do not provide is a friendly environment for divine teleology.

The tragedy of the Renaissance is that when it turned toward Man, it turned away from God.

We live in a new Dark Age, and the Prince of Darkness rules. :bigyikes:

 

[tonyrey]

Any thing which increases suffering is a sin.

A sin occurs when a person** deliberately** causes unnecessary suffering.

 

[ChristRocket]

A sin occurs when a person** deliberately** causes unnecessary suffering.

So a person with same sex attraction that gets married to another man/woman is deliberately causeing suffering? Or a man who drinks too much? Or a white lie?

I’m not sure where everyone is getting their definition of sin here…

Sin is an action or event that goes against the natural law.

This is why gay marriage is a sin - it goes against the natural law. Abortion - goes against the natural law. Most people don’t do these actions to “purposefully” cause suffering, but it doesn’t make it any less sinful.

 

[Nihilist]

A sin occurs when a person** deliberately** causes unnecessary suffering.

But anything which is sinful increases suffering, if viewed in a broad enough sense. For example, a single act of fornication might not appear to increase suffering in itself. But then, it may damage people emotionally, cause children to born in bad situations. In a broader sense, it weaken public morality, human dignity, family structures, etc.

For this reason, it does actually increase suffering- although it was not done with any intention of doing so.

I think all sins is like this. Even if they seem ‘harmless’- they actually do cause suffering somewhere along the line.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think all sins is like this. Even if they seem ‘harmless’- they actually do cause suffering somewhere along the line.

There is no such thing as a victimless sin. We victimize ourselves if no one else.

“Somewhere along the line” is hell or purgatory or an unhappy life.

 

[Bradski]

There is no such thing as a victimless sin. We victimize ourselves if no one else.

“Somewhere along the line” is hell or purgatory or an unhappy life.

My partner and I have been together for many years. Decades in fact. If I say we made love this morning, then let’s face it…you have no idea if it’s a sin or not. The only possible way you could tell, at least from what you say, is if I could prove to you that we were married in a manner which you would find acceptable.

There is no other way for you to tell. It entirely depends on the existence and the validity of a marriage licence.

How risible is that?

 

[ChristRocket]

Bradski:

There is no other way for you to tell. It entirely depends on the existence and the validity of a marriage licence.

How risible is that?

The “validity” of a marriage license isn’t what makes this not a sin, my friend. Men’s and women’s bodies were made a certain way biologically for certain purposes. Two men can never fullfil this purpose. The natural function of sex is procreation. Period. This is why it is considered a sin for same sex sin.

 

[Rhubarb]

I never understood the proposition that THE function of sex (as if it only had one, and only one function) is procreation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I never understood the proposition that THE function of sex (as if it only had one, and only one function) is procreation.

The purpose of sex is procreation. What other purpose do you imagine it could have?

You might add that the ancillary product of sex is recreation, and that the pleasures of the bed assist in the act of procreation.

But nature did not give us sex for the purpose of recreation. That would be absurd, since recreation without procreation would end the species.

To substitute recreation for procreation (the hedonist’s dream) is to defeat nature’s (and God’s) purpose in giving us sex.