Objective Moral Principles

[tonyrey]

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.

We are surrounded by the results of goal-directed activity. How did that activity originate in the first place?

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.

Life itself depends on that axiom. Not to be reasonable is to contradict the basic principles of logic and the quest for truth, justice, peace, harmony and happiness. It defeats the purpose of participating in all mental, physical, social, moral, political, economic, aesthetic and spiritual activity.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

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.

You gave the impression that Christians are unreasonable and regard **all **fantasies as sinful - overlooking the phrase “without intending”…

 

[Bradski]

You gave the impression that Christians are unreasonable and regard **all **fantasies as sinful - overlooking the phrase “without intending”…

You used two phrases. The first phrase ‘without intending’ was separated from the second phrase by ‘or’. So the statement can be read:

It is impossible to sin without intending to do something wrong.

OR

It is impossible to sin without deriving pleasure from the thought of doing wrong.

It’s the second phrase which describes a thought crime. A point which you can easily clarify. Do you believe it is a sin to think of something that is wrong (making love to a work colleague for example).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

When God takes a human life, it is not murder. He will sooner or later take all our lives.

Do you think that makes him a mass murderer?

Murder is what humans do to each other, not what God does to them.

 

[Latias]

When God takes a human life, it is not murder. He will sooner or later take all our lives.

Do you think that makes him a mass murderer?

Murder is what humans do to each other, not what God does to them.

The termination of human life is not intrinsically wrong; it is the just that the sentiments involved such as revulsion and sympathy for the victim is what makes it such a detestable deed, and the consequences such a grievous action would have on the victim such as the termination of life and the suffering in murder. However, the term “murder” almost always denotes an action that is morally wrong because “moral wrongness” is an analytical property of murder, similar to how a bachelor is unmarried. This then raises the question of what “moral wrongness” or rectitude are, and I proffered (based on Hume) that morality is based on individual sentiments, which fortunately, are adaptive and conducive to promoting a functioning civilization.

Ironically, what you are doing is a manifestation of moral relativism. You define “murder” in such a way that God taking a human life is not considered murder, but some secularists still retain the sentiments of revulsion towards the notion that God instructs, encourages, or directly kills individuals so those secularists can mentally associate God committing or endorsing a sordid deed. Similarly, secular pro-abortion advocates do not possess similar sentiments towards terminating the life of the unborn, and would not deem terminating an unborn life wrong (as these sentiments as justified by excluding the unborn from fulfilling the criterion of a “person” or emphasizing the primacy of the woman’s right to control her body).

 

[tonyrey]

*You gave the impression that Christians are unreasonable and regard **all ***

“can be read” is the key word. My sentence could have been worded as:

“It is impossible to sin** without intending **to do something wrong or without intending to derive pleasure from the thought of doing wrong”

but it is reasonable to interpret “without intending to do something wrong” as a general principle to which there are no exceptions whatsoever.

It seems unduly aggressive to seize upon the slightest opportunity to attack Christian beliefs. This impression is confirmed by the hostile sarcasm in your remark:

“Ah, yes. Thougtht Crime. No fantasies allowed, thanks very much.”

 

[Bradski]

“can be read” is the key word. My sentence could have been worded as:

“It is impossible to sin** without intending **to do something wrong or without intending to derive pleasure from the thought of doing wrong”

Now we have a situation where you sin if you intend to do something wrong (first phrase) OR you sin if you derive pleasure from the thought of doing something wrong (second phrase).

So to clarify that second phrase, do you consider it a sin to think about something you’d consider wrong - like making love to a work colleague? And just to clarify, I do not mean thinking about it as a precursor to acting on the thought. Just the thought itself.

Do you have to act for it to be a sin or is the thought itself a sin?

 

[Aloysium]

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?

Since I did not say this, you are either trolling, creating a strawman argument, or this reflects the basic world-view that has been diverting the attention of your soul away from its Goal.
I am going to suppose the latter, but I am completely flummoxed as to how we can begin to communicate.

Who can know the mind of God?

Clearly His will is to enter into eternal loving union with His children.
Given that we turn away from Him, as you appear to have, this has been very difficult.
It ultimately required the sacrifice of His Son, the Word incarnate, Jesus Christ.

We all have a choice in how to act.
God can be understood as being Freedom itself.
It is only in Him that we are truly free.
It is sin that robs us of our freedom.

The means in the case of God’s will, are the ends.

There’s no point arguing with what you think I mean by this, but if you have any questions as to what I mean, ask. Better still, go to the sources; you know what they are.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Since I did not say this, you are either trolling, creating a strawman argument, or this reflects the basic world-view that has been diverting the attention of your soul away from its Goal.
I am going to suppose the latter, but I am completely flummoxed as to how we can begin to communicate.

The problem was one I encounter quite frequently in religious writings. Instead of simply saying what they mean, religious authors will wrap all the points they are trying to make in the most flowery praise-language they can. It’s as though they are competing in some sort of “who can disguise their actual point as a witness statement the best” contest. Rather than try to figure out which of the adjectives you used to describe God and humanity were relevant to your point, I just guessed.

Who can know the mind of God?

Clearly His will is to enter into eternal loving union with His children.
Given that we turn away from Him, as you appear to have, this has been very difficult.
It ultimately required the sacrifice of His Son, the Word incarnate, Jesus Christ.

We all have a choice in how to act.
God can be understood as being Freedom itself.
It is only in Him that we are truly free.
It is sin that robs us of our freedom.

The means in the case of God’s will, are the ends.

There’s no point arguing with what you think I mean by this, but if you have any questions as to what I mean, ask. Better still, go to the sources; you know what they are.

Well, you seem to think you know something about the mind of God, since you’ve followed the question with a bunch of statements which certainly look like you explaining God’s thinking. If you actually think it is impossible to know the mind of God, I can safely deny things like “His will is to enter into eternal loving union with His children” or “can be understood as being Freedom itself” on the grounds that your opening asserted that you didn’t in fact know these things.

If you don’t know the mind of God, can you confidently rule out the possibility that God customizes his moral principles on an individual basis? Maybe God holds each of us to different moral standards, and so God might punish you if you were to “divert the attention of your soul away from its Goal” but he would reward me for it.

 

[tonyrey]

Now we have a situation where you sin if you intend to do something wrong (first phrase) OR you sin if you derive pleasure from the thought of doing something wrong (second phrase).

So to clarify that second phrase, do you consider it a sin to think about something you’d consider wrong - like making love to a work colleague? And just to clarify, I do not mean thinking about it as a precursor to acting on the thought. Just the thought itself.

Do you have to act for it to be a sin or is the thought itself a sin?

It is not a question of either… or… Initial thoughts are not sins because they occur whether we like it or not. There is no element of consent. It is when we find ourselves dwelling on them and ask ourselves whether we really want to commit adultery, for example, that we become responsible. If it happens frequently we have to be realistic: either we are wasting our time on a fantasy or we have to decide how to act. That is when we are likely to be immoral but it is impossible to know for certain precisely when it occurs. In any case living in a dreamworld is unproductive and a sign of immaturity. It may not harm anyone else but we harm ourselves if we become obsessed. Then we are more likely to harm others as well. Morality is not a human invention but a recipe for successful development, fufilment and happiness.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Instead of simply saying what they mean, religious authors will wrap all the points they are trying to make in the most flowery praise-language they can. It’s as though they are competing in some sort of “who can disguise their actual point as a witness statement the best” contest. . . you seem to think you know something about the mind of God, since you’ve followed the question with a bunch of statements which certainly look like you explaining God’s thinking. . . can you confidently rule out the possibility that God customizes his moral principles on an individual basis? Maybe God holds each of us to different moral standards, . . .

There is no better way to describe Beauty, Goodness, Joy, and Life itself than adjectives. It does get frustrating to assert something like, “I saw God in my baby’s laugh.”, which describes the happiness, the wonder, the love and realness of our Father manifested in His creation, and get reflected back a comment about the duration and frequency of the sounds, the physiology involved, or a sociological treatise about human bonding.

What I humbly assert about the nature of God is based on a lifetime relationship, understood in the context of revealed truth as interpreted by the Catholic Church. One has to walk the walk to know the talk.

We each individually. as members of humanity, have a personal relationship with God who knows us completely, more than we know ourselves. God is Love and to commune with Him, one must love - give of, sacrifice oneself for the other. The rules/commandments make it clear in straightforward terms how to do this. Still people quibble, trying to find loopholes, deficiencies in the concepts. The bottom line is one’s closeness to God and one’s neighbour.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do you have to act for it to be a sin or is the thought itself a sin?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:28