Objective Moral Principles

[Rhubarb]

Oh, it’s certainly a purpose. Or, at least a consequence of. But that doesn’t lead me to the purpose. I’m not so sure nature “gave” us sex. Though I’m sure being given it is something most people here will grant. I don’t know - we’ve got lots of biological functions that seem to serve many functions. I’m not so sure about ordering them. Like, I guess the function of my feet is walking? So is it against nature to use them for grabbing a pencil I drop? This is pretty far afield I know, but I think it’s pretty interesting to consider.

 

[Bradski]

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.

Who’s talking about a same sex relationship? You said earlier:

Also, touching on sex, how do we prove objectively that people should not have sex/masterbate before marriage…

So how do decide if my partner and I are doing something harmful? It would seem that you would need to be convinced that we are legally married. All things being equal, you are reduced to saying that:

a. This is a legally binding marriage certificate therefore no harm is being done, or…

b. There is no evidence of a legally binding marriage certificate, therefore harm is being done.

That, my friend, is a nonsensical position.

 

[Latias]

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

I suppose you have your answer in the OP.

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?

Now, the onus is on you to show that there is a “Natural Law”, especially when modern philosophy provides a hostile environment for the notions of teleology and natural law. But I suppose that the challenge for natural law apologists is to address the common (and quite strong) arguments against it.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

All sins are evil but not all evils are sins! It is impossible to sin without intending to do something wrong or deriving pleasure from the thought of doing wrong. There has to be an element of consent. Weakness alone is not sinful although it may be the result of having given way to temptation habitually without having practised self-control sufficiently.

 

[Bradski]

It is impossible to sin without intending to do something wrong or deriving pleasure from the thought of doing wrong.

Ah, yes. Thougtht Crime. No fantasies allowed, thanks very much. Unfortunately, God made you in such a way that certain parts of your body refuse to toe the party line.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

. But I suppose that the challenge for natural law apologists is to address the common (and quite strong) arguments against it.

What do you think would be the strongest argument against natural law?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ah, yes. Thougtht Crime. No fantasies allowed, thanks very much. Unfortunately, God made you in such a way that certain parts of your body refuse to toe the party line.

That part of your body you are talking about is the brain.

The brain is able to choose to toe the party line or to defy it. That’s not exactly unfortunate.

 

[Bradski]

The brain is able to choose to toe the party line or to defy it. That’s not exactly unfortunate.

No, that’s not correct. In fact, it couldn’t be more wrong. You can’t consciously choose how you mentally react to any given situation. You can choose whether to act on those thoughts, but that is an entirely different matter.

 

[JoeT777]

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.

This can’t be right, not at all. The converse of, ‘anything which increases suffering is a sin’, leads into the logical proposition supporting hedonism. The opposite of increasing suffering would be increasing pleasure. John Stuart Mill’s picked up on this philosophy in the mid 1800’s, ‘what is good is what feels good’. It’s seen today in the Protestant prosperity theology, suffering is for the lower classes and the ‘unsaved.’

Sin by definition is that which disrupts the order or form of those things created by God. And, all of creation is deemed by God as good. An act of sin becomes a voluntary immoral act of thought, word or deed [Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo, c. St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, XXII]. This disorder then is said to be evil, the absence of truth and light; “For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name evil.” [Cf. St. Augustine, City of God XI, 9]. Morality then is conducting activities so they freely subordinate themselves to what is both right and fitting.

JoeT

 

[Rhubarb]

What do you think would be the strongest argument against natural law?

The Is-Ought problem. The Naturalistic Fallacy. The fallacious Appeal to Nature. I don’t think change implies a teleology.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, that’s not correct. In fact, it couldn’t be more wrong. You can’t consciously choose how you mentally react to any given situation. You can choose whether to act on those thoughts, but that is an entirely different matter.

O.K. We’re not on the same page. Sorry.

 

[Aloysium]

No, that’s not correct. In fact, it couldn’t be more wrong. You can’t consciously choose how you mentally react to any given situation. You can choose whether to act on those thoughts, but that is an entirely different matter.

I’m sure Charlie could be more wrong.

Lurking, I observed:
You were both speaking metaphorically as if genitals have their say and the brain itself can choose anything.
What understood him to say basically was that our executive functions control our impulses.
You are suggesting that we cannot control how we mentally react.
To both I would say

but :twocents:

To discipline and increase our capacity to direct our minds is the whole point of psychoanalysis, meditation, and education in the broadest terms.
I would agree that we have different feelings about the events and people in our lives, and it is we ourselves who decide which ends we will pursue in thought and action.

Eg:
Sexual desire might be understood as having three outcomes.
Depending on what God asks of us, our calling, they may be

• confronted and quieted, thereby leaving oneself increasingly open to Beauty and Joy, or
• the means by which we physically and spiritually connect in loving relation to another,
  both leading one towards Love.
  Alternately they may directed away from the good:
• discharged as a self-gratifying empty isolation of the detached self, separated from love.

 

[tonyrey]

It is impossible to sin without intending to do something wrong or deriving pleasure from the thought of doing wrong.

So indulging in fantasies about rape and abuse should be recommended in schools and colleges?

 

[tonyrey]

The Is-Ought problem. The Naturalistic Fallacy. The fallacious Appeal to Nature. I don’t think change implies a teleology.

So all change is fundamentally purposeless? What is the basis for that conclusion?

 

[tonyrey]

The Is-Ought problem…

Don’t you believe we ought to be reasonable?

 

[Rhubarb]

I didn’t say either of those things. Please, don’t put words in my mouth.

I don’t think change implies a goal-directed form of end on its own. A purpose, as being suggested, is metaphysically troubling to me - and run into the same problem that abstract objects run into.

As for reasoning - I don’t think that because humans are reasonable is enough to say that humans ought to be reasonable. More needs to be added to the equation. We can talk about lots of ways the world IS. But that doesn’t get us to OUGHT alone. Now perhaps humans indeed ought to be reasonable - but that relies in two premises. That humans are reasonable creatures, and something else to go from that to the conclusion.

 

[Bradski]

So indulging in fantasies about rape and abuse should be recommended in schools and colleges?

Bradski: Having fantasies is not inherently wrong.
Tony: So fantasies about rape and abuse should be recommended to children.

I don’t know how you do it, Tony. Really, I’m at a loss as to how your thought processes work.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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.

And it came to pass at midnight, the Lord slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharao, who sat on his throne, unto the firstborn of the captive woman that was in the prison, and all the firstborn of cattle.

And Pharao arose in the night, and all his servants, and all Egypt: for there was not a house wherein there lay not one dead.

Instinctively this feels wrong. As you said, it would seem that this sort of murder is self-evidently wrong.

 

[Aloysium]

Instinctively this feels wrong. . .

I think this feeling results from an understanding of God
as a Creator who exists alongside His creation
rather than our Father, the Source of all existence in the Trinity.

We are God’s completely as daughters and sons.
We individually are eternal beings existing as one humanity.
It is that humanity that he freed from slavery to sin, death,
granting each of us the joyous possibility of eternal Life in Him.

I would recommend contemplation of the cross, adoration of the Eucharist.
Know Jesus Christ! The pieces will all fall together.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I think this feeling results from an understanding of God
as a Creator who exists alongside His creation
rather than our Father, the Source of all existence in the Trinity.

We are God’s completely as daughters and sons.
We individually are eternal beings existing as one humanity.
It is that humanity that he freed from slavery to sin, death,
granting each of us the joyous possibility of eternal Life in Him.

I would recommend contemplation of the cross, adoration of the Eucharist.
Know Jesus Christ! The pieces will all fall together.

So what you’re saying is that God had not choice but to kill to achieve his ends, and so his ends justified his means?