Objective morality, Relative morality, or No morality...?

[matthias]

I am creating this thread to address issues braught up by AntonLaVey5446 in another thread. To prevent that thread being hijacked from it’s original topic I’ve offered to start a new thread for him.

Here are his comments to start off this thread… It may be a bit fragmented because I only copied his original comments not all the responses…

AntonLaVey5446:

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! RIIIGHT!! You honestly believe that this will repent your so-called sins? I hate to break it to you but what you call “sinning” is only natural and is not to be looked down upon. You people are ignorant fools.

AntonLaVey5446:

But the concept of sinning is subjective.

AntonLaVey5446:

Eh…I like commenting on other’s threads, although I ought to be more conciderate of others views, shouldn’t I? Hmm…well…I believe that each person has their own belief system of what they believe is “right” or “wrong”, “good” or “bad”. However, this belief, I believe should be sought upon by the individual alone and should not be inforced my the Church, or by any other individual(s).

AntonLaVey5446:

…I have never been convinced that sin is objective…

 

[matthias]

Wow… maybe nobody’s interested in morality tonight, hehe.

Anyway I’ll respond to your questions…

I’d say that everyone believes in objective morality at some point. For instance… if I decide without reason, some day, that I will walk up to your house kill you and take your car as my own I think you and everyone else could agree that that would be wrong.

 

[YinYangMom]

Truth is Truth and it has been revealed to man through the Hebrews/Jews and Jesus, and it was revealed that this Truth is for all mankind, to the ends of the earth - not just for a select group of people (if I recall correctly).

So, one can accept or reject the Truth.
Anton rejects it, as is his perogative.
If there were any indication whatsoever Anton was interested in exploring the remote possibility there is but one Truth then I suspect more people would spend time answering any questions he might have.
That is not the case, therefore, I choose to spend my time elsewhere on the boards.

Did you have a specific question you wanted us to ponder and discuss on this thread?

 

[BlestOne]

I guess dear Anton LeVey didn’t really want to discuss this…I rather think he was just trying to disrupt the board with his statements and lost interest when he wasn’t allowed to. Too bad…it truly looked as if he had much to learn here. I think I will send him off with a prayer:
May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face.
May the rains fall soft upon your fields and until we meet again,
May the Lord hold you in the palm of His hand.

 

[BillP]

Well I’m up for this.

I believe that objective morality can only exist in matters of motivations for acts. That acts themselves are either moral or immoral depending on the intention of the actor.

For every act that someone considers immoral I believe that some set of circumstances will morally justify that act.

Even terminating a pregnancy is moral in the case of ectopic pregnancy. In fact, it would be immoral not to terminate the pregnancy in such circumstances.

In fact, the only way to define specific acts as moral or immoral is to include the motivation for the act as part of its definition. For example society defines “murder” as killing “with malice aforethought”. The Catholic Church defines Abortion as willfully terminiating a pregnancy without sufficient reason.

 

[Ender]

BillP:

I believe that objective morality can only exist in matters of motivations for acts. That acts themselves are either moral or immoral depending on the intention of the actor.

I’m not sure this is much different than saying morality is whatever an individual wants it to be. Here is an example of the problem with this position: in Pakistan recently a man murdered his three young daughters because his older step-daughter committed adultery. He considered it necessary to uphold his family’s honor. If you believe what you wrote above then you have no grounds to condemn his behavior.

BillP:

Even terminating a pregnancy is moral in the case of ectopic pregnancy. In fact, it would be immoral not to terminate the pregnancy in such circumstances.

This is an example of an act with a twofold effect: saving the life of the mother results in the death of the fetus. The former is the object of the action, the latter is an undesired consequence and the action results in at least as much good (life for one) as the evil it also causes (death for the other). There are guidelines for evaluating such cases.

BillP:

In fact, the only way to define specific acts as moral or immoral is to include the motivation for the act as part of its definition. For example society defines “murder” as killing “with malice aforethought”. The Catholic Church defines Abortion as willfully terminiating a pregnancy without sufficient reason.

Intent is a major part of moral action but some actions are evil regardless of how noble the intent might be. Here is what the Church teaches:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Ender

 

[BillP]

Ender:

This is an example of an act with a twofold effect:

We’re not talking about the effects of an act here. We’re talking about the act itself. to wit, the surgical excision of a section of a fallopian tube conatining a fertilized ovum (a child under Catholic teaching). It is exactly the same physical act as an abortion, the surgical excision of a section of the uterine wall to which a fertilized ovum is attached. The only thing that makes one moral and the other immoral is the intent. Thus the act itself isn’t what is moral or immoral.

Ender:

Intent is a major part of moral action but some actions are evil regardless of how noble the intent might be. Here is what the Church teaches::

Name one.

[ It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.

Ender:
1756](http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E%3Cimg%20src=%22images/smilies/redface.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22%22%20title=%22Embarrassment%22%20smilieid=%222%22%20class=%22inlineimg%22%20/%3EpenWindow%28%27cr/1756.htm%27%29

Perjury and murder require a combination of act plus intent. Murder is willful killing with malice aforethought. If you don’t have the aforethought you have committed manslaughter, without the malice it might not even be a crime. in each of those three cases the act, killing another human being, is exactly the same the only distiguishing characteristic is the intent of the actor.

Similarly, perjury is willfully lying with the intent to deceive in a material matter. The actual act is lying. The intent to deceive must be present or the lie is inconsequential. “Honey, do these jeans make me look fat?”. “Of course not sweetie”

Blasphemy is some utterance that intentionally insults or disrespects God. The act is the utterance. Without the intent to disrepect God you just have verbal noise.

The Adultery I’ve got to think on.

I look forward to your response

 

[BillP]

Actully the Adultery just came to me. I needed my morning coffee no doubt.

In fact the “act” involved in Adultery is simply sexual intercourse. Under certain circumstances, in a married realtionship, without using ABC, the act is actually sacramental, according to the Catholic Church. It is only when the circumstances alter that the act of sexual intercourse becomes problematic.

So in summary, blasphemy, adultery, perjury and murder aren’t simply “acts” that are always disorder. They require a combination of act plus either circumstance or intent for their wrongness.

I still maintain that mere “acts” cannot be intrinisically evil absent an evil motivation or aggravating circumstance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

BillP:

Actully the Adultery just came to me. I needed my morning coffee no doubt.

In fact the “act” involved in Adultery is simply sexual intercourse. Under certain circumstances, in a married realtionship, without using ABC, the act is actually sacramental, according to the Catholic Church. It is only when the circumstances alter that the act of sexual intercourse becomes problematic.

So in summary, blasphemy, adultery, perjury and murder aren’t simply “acts” that are always disorder. They require a combination of act plus either circumstance or intent for their wrongness.

I still maintain that mere “acts” cannot be intrinisically evil absent an evil motivation or aggravating circumstance.

They can. Let’s take two examples – fixing a meal, and killing a human being. Both of those acts carry a presumption – fixing a meal is a good act, and no one would be charged with wrongdoing – unless there were special circumstances (they served tainted food, for example.)

Now consider the other act – killing a human being. That carries a presumption of wrongdoing, and if you kill someone, you better have a good reason.

Now let’s go to abortion – is that ever a “good thing?” Or is that an act so intrinsically sinful that it can never be justified under any circumstances?

 

[BillP]

Ender:

I’m not sure this is much different than saying morality is whatever an individual wants it to be. Here is an example of the problem with this position: in Pakistan recently a man murdered his three young daughters because his older step-daughter committed adultery. He considered it necessary to uphold his family’s honor.

Well I don’t know how I missed this one the first time through.

As a society we all agree that there are at least some jusitifications for homicide, self defense, the death oenalty under certain circumstances, and “just war” come to mind for Catholics. That doesn’t mean that we have to accept every justification that anyone offers for their acts. And no Catholic is going to accept that father’s “jusitification”.

Ender:

If you believe what you wrote above then you have no grounds to condemn his behavior.

Do you know what a “strawman” arguement is? How about an ad hominem attack? If you are interested in having a civil, thoughtful, intelligient discourse on this topic, I am your guy. If you just want to bash and insult people you don’t agree with, don’t waste our time. Okay?

 

[BillP]

vern humphrey:

Now let’s go to abortion – is that ever a “good thing?” Or is that an act so intrinsically sinful that it can never be justified under any circumstances?

Abortion is not an “act” it is an act carried out under a certain set of circumstances. If the pregnancy terminated is in the uterous it is evil and the act is abortion. If the pregnancy is in the fallopian tube the act is licit.

In fact, even if the child is in the uterous and the pregnancy is unknown, then the act is unfortunate but not sinful. FREX if a woman who doesn’t know she’s pregnant goes in for a D&C.

Abortion is evil. But it’s only Abortion if one has an evil intent.

 

[vern_humphrey]

BillP:

Abortion is not an “act” it is an act carried out under a certain set of circumstances. If the pregnancy terminated is in the uterous it is evil and the act is abortion. If the pregnancy is in the fallopian tube the act is licit.

In fact, even if the child is in the uterous and the pregnancy is unknown, then the act is unfortunate but not sinful. FREX if a woman who doesn’t know she’s pregnant goes in for a D&C.

Abortion is evil. But it’s only Abortion if one has an evil intent.

We’ve been around the Horn on this one – and I argued something like your position. The answer is, abortion is intrinsically sinful. It is permissible to perform surgery that may result in the death of the fetus, but only if the intent is to save life, and the death is not willed, but only accepted as enevitable.

Abortion is an act. It is intrinsically sinful.

 

[BillP]

vern humphrey:

We’ve been around the Horn on this one – and I argued something like your position. The answer is, abortion is intrinsically sinful.

Of course it is. We must be careful to remember that “abortion” requires both the act and the intent. In effect I belive we’re on the same page here. The intent to terminate the pregnancy is what defines any particular surgical procedure as “abortion” and thus sinful. Right?
vern humphrey:

It is permissible to perform surgery that may result in the death of the fetus, but only if the intent is to save life, and the death is not willed, but only accepted as enevitable.

I don’t want to nitpick you here, does the intent have to be to “save life” can it just be something other than the death of the fetus? FREX when the pregnancy isn’t known.

 

[vern_humphrey]

BillP:

Of course it is. We must be careful to remember that “abortion” requires both the act and the intent. In effect I belive we’re on the same page here. The intent to terminate the pregnancy is what defines any particular surgical procedure as “abortion” and thus sinful. Right?

Is that Platonism – thought and extension equals reality?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

An act does not exist until actually performed – an abstraction cannot be considered an act.

BillP:

I don’t want to nitpick you here, does the intent have to be to “save life” can it just be something other than the death of the fetus? FREX when the pregnancy isn’t known.

The special circumstances you cited, an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube, will, if untreated result in the death of mother and child. The Church accepts some (but not all) treatments. Those treatments can save the mother, but not the child.

Now I’m not sure how you could treat an ectopic pregnancy if you didn’t know it existed. I assume therefore you are asking about inadventantly causing death – doing something that results in an abortion to a woman whom you did not know (and could not have known) was pregnant. This takes us a long way from Platonism to Pragmatism – “actions are judged by their outcomes.”

James would consider the act bad, even if no blame accrued to the actor.

 

[Ender]

You have made statements that are contradictory.

BILLP:

acts themselves are either moral or immoral depending on the intention of the actor.

That doesn’t mean that we have to accept every justification that anyone offers for their acts. And no Catholic is going to accept that father’s “jusitification”.

If you believe that an act is moral if the actor’s intention is moral (1) then what is your basis for saying that you don’t have to accept the actor’s justification for his act (2)? That’s what your claim implies.

Obviously no Catholic would accept (in the example I gave) the father’s justification for murdering his daughters, but his intention was to uphold his family’s honor. This is clearly a case where the intention behind the act was moral but the action was grossly immoral. As I said in my other post, someone who believes that intent determines morality has no grounds for condemning even something as shocking as a father’s murder of his three daughters given that his intent was moral.

Ender

 

[BillP]

Ender:

If you believe that an act is moral if the actor’s intention is moral (1) then what is your basis for saying that you don’t have to accept the actor’s justification for his act

First of all that’s not exactly what I said. Careful reading of my post will reveal that I said that the morality of a particular act is driven by it’s motivation, not it’s intention. A subtle difference, but a difference to be sure.

But getting on with the answer, Two reasons; First, because people don’t always act in good faith. They sometimes lie or rationalize to justify doing what they want. Second, their jusitification may be driven by a value system that is inimical to the truth.

Ender:

Obviously no Catholic would accept (in the example I gave) the father’s justification for murdering his daughters, but his intention was to uphold his family’s honor.
This is clearly a case where the intention behind the act was moral but the action was grossly immoral.

No, this is straw man. True morality (as defined by the Catholic Church) only permits killing in cases of self defense (even a just war is a kind of remote self-defense). So there is nothing moral about killing to uphold one’s “family honor”. This would be covered by the “inimical values” part of my post above. If the Father’s culture requires him to kill his daughters to uphold his honor then it is flawed.

Ender:

As I said in my other post, someone who believes that intent determines morality has no grounds for condemning even something as shocking as a father’s murder of his three daughters given that his intent was moral.

But we have seen that his intent wasn’t moral haven’t we?

To recap. Killing is an act. And acts in and of themselves are devoid of moral content. The moral content is based on the motivation behind the act. In your example, if the father killed his daughter to protect his other daughters, or another human being then the killing is moral. In fact, protecting the innocent is a moral imperitive. If he killed her for any other reason he is wrong.

In our society we have internalized this fact so deeply that we use different terms to describe exactly the same act with diffferent motivations. Homicide, muder and manslaughter for example, are all terms used for killing people. Which term is determined by the motivation of the killer.

 

[Ham1]

BillP,

Throughout moral theology there is indeed a concept of intrinsically evil acts. The reasoning that you are using in your posts is known as proportionalism and is definitively condemned in Veritatis Splendor by Pope John Paul II using much of the ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas on the construct of the moral act. Proportionalism promotes the idea that no act can ever be defined as intrinsically evil and that it always depends on the circumstances and intention.

The object of the act in Catholic theology can, in a sense, include certain circumstances, which fundamentally change the nature of that object. St. Thomas calls these conditio principalis as opposed to *conditio particularis *. But there remains throughout the history of moral theology the teaching that there are certain objects that can never be the subject of a moral choice (acts such as murder, adultery, stealing, etc.).

 

[Ender]

BillP:

True morality (as defined by the Catholic Church) …

If you believe that it is the Church that defines true morality then you will have to change your position as it differs significantly from what the Church has said…

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Just so we know how to proceed: do you reject the Church’s definition in favor of your own?

Ender

 

[BillP]

Ender, Are you this nasty in real life? If so how do you keep from getting punched in the nose on a daily basis?

Ender:

If you believe that it is the Church that defines true morality then you will have to change your position

Indeed I have changed by position. I now simply point out that what the Church defines as “gravely illicit” acts ALWAYS have some evil iintention or circumstance inherent within thier definition. Very interesting.

Thank you everyone, for helping me clarify and organize my thinking. This is what these boards are for.

 

[Ender]

Well … without meaning to be nasty about this, your new position still doesn’t accord with what the Church teaches. There are three components of a moral act, the object, the intent, and the circumstances. The Church teaches that some acts are always immoral even if the intent and the circumstances are moral. She does not teach that every immoral act “ALWAYS have some evil iintention or circumstance inherent within thier definition.”

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1755… The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

Ender