Objective Morality

[inocente]

1- If morality isn’t outside our minds you have no basis to assume that morality exists for God, and as such cannot assert that God is good, or even worse, it seems that morality is above God because it could somehow value God as worthy or unworthy.

I’m saying God is love and does not need a moral code - He judges us through love alone.

2- With what I said I don’t mean to say that we cannot discover what morality is. I know that we are imbued with reason and logic and we can argue and find rational reasons to know God and what is good and bad. That is why we were made in God’s image. (I believe)

I agree.

3- With what you said about secular democracies and atheists and humanists, I would have to state: If one can reach salvation without God (or belief in God in any way) it begs the question of “why believe in God at all?”.

I admit that I could be taken to be whittling away at a reason to believe. But the Gospel reveals a far deeper love than I ever knew when I was an atheist, and that alone is reason enough to want to lead someone to Christ (although not The God Of Constant Morals, if you’ll forgive the pun on the Soggy Bottom Boys song).

 

[dskysmine]

I’m saying God is love and does not need a moral code - He judges us through love alone.

I admit that I could be taken to be whittling away at a reason to believe. But the Gospel reveals a far deeper love than I ever knew when I was an atheist, and that alone is reason enough to want to lead someone to Christ (although not The God Of Constant Morals, if you’ll forgive the pun on the Soggy Bottom Boys song).

I didn’t say that God needs a moral code… if He is the source of morality it would make no sense to assert that God was somehow restrained by a moral entity superior to him.
If we look at Genesis (I know this is going to be hard but bear with me) God asserts that the sun is “good”, the earth is “good”, etc… In a real sense of what we call morality it would seem non sensical to call something “good” when there were no humans around, but if we are to believe that God created us in His image it would stand to reason that the universe has the laws it has because it made possible our existence as is. It is the teleological argument that asserts that we are alive because the universe allows for our existence. A universe where the PI wasn’t 3.14159… etc couldn’t contain human life. This leads to the conclusion that morality, because it is directly related to us, existed way before we were born. If this morality existed, and still exists, it is non sensical to assert that we are the source of morality. In fact it leads to the conclusion that we are the goal of morality. When we say: That is bad, or, that is evil, it is bad because it does not serve us. It is evil because it leads to defective human life. If morality exists, it is not subjective. It is objective because its source is in God, but because it is from God, it is also personal. It serves each of us. My path to God may be different from yours, but it is no “better” and it is no “worse”. But it is not built by my emotion or feelings. It is built by my relationship with God, which, because we are Catholic includes my relationship with everyone (which also includes the Church).
Now do you understand what I mean?

 

[inocente]

But it is not built by my emotion or feelings. It is built by my relationship with God, which, because we are Catholic includes my relationship with everyone (which also includes the Church).
Now do you understand what I mean?

Apologies if I stepped into Rom 14 territory in post #120. I’m just arguing a point, not intending to be judgmental.

Agreed on most of what you said, and certainly that morality should not be built on emotion and feelings. Where we seem to differ is not in the source of morality (God) but in the extent to which eternal “goods” exist. I say there only needs to be love, if it is sensible at all to express it as a moral good. God says the earth is good through love alone because He is intent on us. He then equips us to determine the rest.

I’m not quite there in understanding either you or Charlemagne, except that the two of you may differ a little. This is new stuff to me - if you would, can you let me know your thoughts on the concrete example I posted to him in #106, as that may help me through the abstractions:

Every so often someone will start a thread asking if it’s OK to download music for free. Some say it’s fine if it increases your interest in the artiste and may cause you to buy more, others that it’s stealing, or it depends on what the artiste wants, etc.

Now I say that sooner or later we will reach a consensus on that by a synthesis of existing morals. I then say that the existing morals themselves were derived by the same process, and working back find they start with love or in some cases instinct.

Do you agree, or is the morality of downloading music an eternal object wired into our brains, or is it is synthesized from objects wired into our brains, or …

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

*That comparison between the homosexual act and sheep is badly deficient in at least three ways:
*

It is a good comparison because both acts are unnatural.

*I got there independently but Paul knew all along if only I had eyes to see. Thanks! *

Ah, you don’t really want me to quote Paul on homosexuality, do you?

Do you agree, or is the morality of downloading music an eternal object wired into our brains, or is it is synthesized from objects wired into our brains, or

Very strange logic. The prohibition of theft is wired into our brains. Every civilization condemns it, and no one practices it unless they have become sociopathic.

I say there only needs to be love, if it is sensible at all to express it as a moral good. God says the earth is good through love alone because He is intent on us. He then equips us to determine the rest.

Love is paramount, but it is not sufficient. There are the three theological virtues, and we must have them all to be saved. Faith, hope, and charity. The greatest of these is charity (Love).

 

[dskysmine]

Apologies if I stepped into Rom 14 territory in post #120. I’m just arguing a point, not intending to be judgmental.

Agreed on most of what you said, and certainly that morality should not be built on emotion and feelings. Where we seem to differ is not in the source of morality (God) but in the extent to which eternal “goods” exist. I say there only needs to be love, if it is sensible at all to express it as a moral good. God says the earth is good through love alone because He is intent on us. He then equips us to determine the rest.

I would caution you on the way you construct your phrases, they may border some thoughts that are contrary to Catholic belief, especially because this is a field that is not frequently discussed in Religious Forums.
Your phrase “God says the earth is good through love alone because He is intent on us.” can sound like we are the reason for God’s Love, while it is not Catholic teaching that it is so. The Holy Trinity is God, and is Love because Love “is” a relationship. Love is not outside of God, when we say that God is Love we do not mean that God is defined through another concept that we call “love” but that we see “love” as the materialization of God’s goodness, as His presence in our midst. Just like we say: God is good, we must say that good is God, since it is through Him that we perceive what good is. And don’t forget that love exists always in the Holy Trinity, even without humans.

I’m not quite there in understanding either you or Charlemagne, except that the two of you may differ a little. This is new stuff to me - if you would, can you let me know your thoughts on the concrete example I posted to him in #106, as that may help me through the abstractions:
"Every so often someone will start a thread asking if it’s OK to download music for free. Some say it’s fine if it increases your interest in the artiste and may cause you to buy more, others that it’s stealing, or it depends on what the artiste wants, etc.

Now I say that sooner or later we will reach a consensus on that by a synthesis of existing morals. I then say that the existing morals themselves were derived by the same process, and working back find they start with love or in some cases instinct.

Do you agree, or is the morality of downloading music an eternal object wired into our brains, or is it is synthesized from objects wired into our brains, or …"

The “morality” of downloading music is simply a matter of action before God.
Just like I stated earlier, it is through God that we perceive what is good and what is bad. We know what hurts others and what doesn’t. We also know that we are not “of this earth”. If your rich brother goes to your house and gives you a pie, should you not accept it? This is an analogy of those bands that having given rights to some publisher to sell their “pies” also allow for people to download them from their website.
There are however bands that don’t do this. It may be pressure from the publisher, or any other reason, but it is their right to ask for remuneration for their work. Do we not pay to visit a museum in order to allow that museum to get more pieces of art, or better maintenance? How is it “our right” to obtain access to those “pies” without their owner’s consent? Some factories produce millions of “pies” and don’t notice if they sell 1 more pie or 1 less pie, but are we not to set the example to which people should loop up to?
If everyone else acted the way you do what would be of those musicians? Most erudite music these days isn’t even recorded in studio… and look at how it is regarded by the mainstream population.
Shouldn’t everyone be “graced” with the most beautiful “Glorias” we know were composed? We can certainly try to play them ourselves. =)

I think I digressed too much. It is not only because of the actual effect of an illegal download of a music that it is immoral… it is also because of what we stand for. If we do not masturbate in the privacy of our rooms for purity of heart, why would we practice knowingly “theft”?

I stand here a guilty man because I have in the past downloaded many songs and music from the internet, whenever I want to listen to Beethoven (or any other artist) I know that those 15 euros I payed for in the store were the fruit of my labour, and that I gave to “Caesar what is Caesar’s”.

And don’t worry, paying 15 euros for a CD doesn’t mean 100 less meals in Africa, with your joy, you certainly produce 1000 meals more when listening to that music.

 

[inocente]

It is a good comparison because both acts are unnatural.

Very deep. Two observations: The only system of ethics I know of that deems the homosexual act unnatural/bad is the natural law, and even then only in one version. And the infamous Paul quotes are about perversions, not homosexuality. I’d be glad to set you straight on these points, but am getting fed up of arguing it because so many on both sides have become intransigent and polarized (not I hasten, your good self).

Very strange logic. The prohibition of theft is wired into our brains. Every civilization condemns it, and no one practices it unless they have become sociopathic.

Other Catholics on CAF have disagreed that downloading music is necessarily theft, which was the reason for choosing it. I’m trying to understand how a novel moral issue is dealt with from the stance of unchanging moral truths. It may help if you can think of a better example where the conclusion isn’t immediately obvious, even to your good self.

Love is paramount, but it is not sufficient. There are the three theological virtues, and we must have them all to be saved. Faith, hope, and charity. The greatest of these is charity (Love).

True for us but not at all for God - or does your good self disagree with my sig?

 

[inocente]

If everyone else acted the way you do what would be of those musicians?

I don’t download music either, I wouldn’t know what to do with an MP3 player. I listen to it on YouTube, some of which I guess is placed there without the original publisher’s consent because it gets removed again. I too have a CD collection of different settings of the Mass from de Victoria to Janacek (the atheist ), but you are fortunate in being able to play an instrument.

I asked the question to find out how you deal with a novel moral issue, so you didn’t digress as all, you gave an excellent insight. But the dogs are lined up for their walk, so I’ll analyze your process and see if it differs from mine tomorrow. Thanks.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Other Catholics on CAF have disagreed that downloading music is necessarily theft, which was the reason for choosing it. I’m trying to understand how a novel moral issue is dealt with from the stance of unchanging moral truths. It may help if you can think of a better example where the conclusion isn’t immediately obvious, even to your good self.

As you say, this is a novel situation that requires some consideration. If there are laws on the books to protect the property rights of the composers, producers, and distributors of music, then clearly it is a case of theft to unlawfully reproduce for sale or profit the labors of others. However, reproducing for one’s own pleasure cannot be illegal or a form of theft. If I photocopy a painting from a book, frame it, and hang it on the wall for my own pleasure, I do not think the F.B.I. or the original maker of that painting is going to believe a theft has been committed. If I photocopy five copies of an article and give them to my friends to read, I don’t think the publisher is concerned about theft; in fact, he might view the act as free and welcome advertisement for his magazine. If I download music from the internet for my own pleasure, I am not aware of any law against that. If I download music and sell it, that is another matter altogether, don’t you think? I believe it’s called piracy. So any Catholic who believes downloading is not theft may think like this consistent with the natural law against theft. I don’t think any Catholic in good conscience can download someone else’s work and sell it, at least not without offering the creator of the work some compensation that is duly accepted as proper payment.

As for finding a better example of “unchanging moral truth,” I believe I have already offered several. Again:

Under what conditions would the unchanging moral truth that “we should never torture or punish those we know to be innocent of wrongdoing” somehow become no longer an unchanging moral truth … that is, might become a morally acceptable act?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc Antony

*If we believe that morals exist for the benefit of humanity, then the innocent are the ones not harming humanity. So it is not useful to punish those who are keeping in line with the rules put in place to make humanity happy. *

You’ve missed the point. Go back and look at the definition of objective morality to which wanstronian agreed … that an objectively morality deals with actions that can be said to be always and everywhere good or bad. To deny such a morality, to be a subjective moralist, is to say that the same action can be good or bad depending on circumstances.

Well then, under what circumstances would it be a morally good act to punish the innocent?

Under what circumstances would it be morally acceptable to wantonly inflict cruelty on a child?

Under what circumstances would it be morally acceptable for all the nations of the world to fire their nuclear missiles at each other?

You know, I read this post, blinked a couple of times, and realized that this entire time I’ve been going around the issue without ever hitting the nail on the head. Thank you!

 

[JDaniel]

Are you saying that morality is all instinct?

Inocente:

Almost, but not quite. St. Thomas calls it knowledge by connaturality, or, IOW, inclination. It is the most primitive way for human beings to know things. For example, no one had to “teach” us how to form families (although some teaching might cause us to improve on it). It didn’t take humanity to reach the 20th, or 21st, century to learn how to raise children. It comes from a self-awareness. This self-awareness reveals our own natures to ourselves. It also pressures us, from inside, to bring to light these inclinations thus utilizing them for good or bad.

Perhaps an example to be clear. Every so often someone will start a thread asking if it’s OK to download music for free. Some say it’s fine if it increases your interest in the artiste and may cause you to buy more, others that it’s stealing, or it depends on what the artiste wants, etc.

Well, it seems that the simple majority of artists would prefer not to give away the products of their efforts.

Now I say that sooner or later we will reach a consensus on that by a synthesis of existing morals. I then say that the existing morals themselves were derived by the same process, and working back find they start with love or in some cases instinct.

They are really not our products to reach a consensus on. If I spent 40 hours a week growing vegetables, fertilizing them, picking the insects off of them, then picking the vegetables, sorting them and packaging them, I wouldn’t want them stolen and given away either. I suppose you are going to work for FREE when you grow up?

Do you agree, or is the morality of downloading music an eternal object wired into our brains, or is it is synthesized from objects wired into our brains, or …

It really doesn’t take much intellectual activity to recognize that if I allow my wares to be confiscated without fair recompense, I, and my family, would rapidly starve to Death.

[snip]

Sorry for butting in and God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

[SNIPPED]

But that superficial argument led me to a hallelujah moment for which I thank you – the belief in timeless moral truths can lead us astray by stopping us from thinking things through for ourselves. That is why the various moral philosophies don’t give consistent answers. They are all based on the wrong assumption that morals are rationally timeless, when the only truth is that they must be thought through in love.

 

[inocente]

Under what conditions would the unchanging moral truth that “we should never torture or punish those we know to be innocent of wrongdoing” somehow become no longer an unchanging moral truth … that is, might become a morally acceptable act?

Subjectively acquired morals need not change. We’re human and some morals will reflect that for all time. Others depend on the culture and so on. Jesus didn’t think it was such a good idea to stone adulterers to death anymore. I’d also say in passing that it’s wrong to ever torture anyone (or any animal) under any circumstances, but certain folk in a certain US base seem to disagree with my subjective assessment.

 

[inocente]

They are really not our products to reach a consensus on. If I spent 40 hours a week growing vegetables, fertilizing them, picking the insects off of them, then picking the vegetables, sorting them and packaging them, I wouldn’t want them stolen and given away either. I suppose you are going to work for FREE when you grow up?

I’m not sure where this idea arose that I support downloading, I just said there isn’t a consensus in society at present. For the record, as someone whose previous job involved trying to stop software theft, downloading music for free is wrong for at least these reasons:

1. 
   *]The international conventions put into law by most countries are that any copying not authorized by the publisher breaks copyright. Whatever our intent, downloading music for free is then illegal unless the publisher has openly granted a waiver.
   *]The main methods for downloading (peer-to-peer or from specially created websites) encourage others in the same activity.
   *]It can cause publishers to recover losses by increasing the price for those who buy the music legally.
   *]While losses may not matter to millionaire bands, they work against new bands and minority interest genres, harming our culture.
   *]By enabling someone to build a huge collection it devalues music for them big time.
   

   From our ancestors? Then, where did they learn it from?

   Something I did say is that we have instincts. Are you making category errors though? Reproduction is instinctive, unless you want to include the various ways that we’ve learned to increase fertility. Seeking and eating food are instinctive unless you want to include supermarkets and cooking. We learned to speak but we sure didn’t all learn the same language.
   

   What is the real difference between affording the freedom of cohabitation, or participation in the Sacrament of marriage? Why was it better to change the secular law?

   Cohabitation is a widespread problem and denying civil union to monogamous couples of any orientation doesn’t exactly help stop promiscuity. One of the main points of the civil ceremony is to proclaim your love for each other and vow to stick together. Homosexuals who do that and remain together might just teach all those divorcees a thing or two. No one is asking to interfere with the sanctity of marriage in any religion. The argument for changing the law in my country was simple:
   1. 
      *]The status quo wrongly harmed a group of citizens.
      *]A society that does not wrongly harm its citizens is a better society.
      
      The harm is in treating citizens differently without sufficient cause.
      
      Let me see if this switches on your icky center: The main police force in Spain is the Guardia Civil, a tough bunch who sign-on for a fixed term just like the army. There’s a cafe next to the barracks where some of the cops go for lunch. Two of them are holding hands because they are married (their Capitán allocated them married quarters, where a nanny is looking after their adopted kid). They are both men, and also probably both Catholic because most people are here. None of their colleagues bat an eyelid but one old guy in the corner looks away, remembering the old days. For better or for worse?

 

[inocente]

dskysmine and Charlemagne II

When I asked the question about downloading music, it was to understand how those who believe in an objective morality obtain an answer. Thanks for your replies. :bowdown2:

Why do your reasons and answers differ? You might say that timeless morals still involve a process of working out which ones apply and for what reasons, but I’m then entitled to ask how eternal truths help at all. I mean none of my reasons in post #133 are likely to be wired into our brains or held in any other objective domain. So if there are eternal moral truths beyond love, where are they and what’s the point?

 

[wanstronian]

You shouldn’t be.

You’re probably right - it’s not like theists are particularly concerned about the underlying logic in their arguments!

Atheists often brag the world would be so much better off without religion.

I don’t think we ‘brag’ anything - some of us offer opinions, and back them up with observational justification, which I’m sure you’re familiar with so I won’t list them. I’m not sure whether we would be better off without religion. But I’m fairly sure we’d be no worse off.

I’m just pointing out that this was certainly not the case in the atheistic dictatorships of the 20th century.

You think you’re pointing out a fact, but you’re just repeating a fallacy. You can’t demonstrate any causal link between their atheism and their actions. They were evil dictators, sure. They also happened to be atheists.

Franco was also a fascist dictator. Oh, and he was a Roman Catholic. Presumably, by your logic, you’re happy to concede that Catholicism caused him to violate his citizens’ human rights?

Or take Robert Mugable, whose Catholicism supposedly causes him to ignore the suffering, dispossession and starvation of his own people while he lives a life of luxury?

You are certainly not a historian. You are so poorly educated you perhaps assume a quotation from Mein Kampf is going to make Hitler look Christian? Think again. Hitler often pandered to the Christian voters of Germany, reassuring them of his solidarity with them. But from the time he seized power that pretense was no longer possible. He began immediately to imprison and murder the Jews, Catholics, and Protestants who stood against him. You apparently missed that part in your reading of history. He endorsed the atheist philosopher Nietzsche, planned to kidnap Pope Pius XII, and said of religion as early as 1932:

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.”

Well, I guess the evidence is inconclusive. You have a quote saying one thing, and I have quotes saying something else. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Likewise from Stalin

“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

Seems fair enough - it doesn’t say, “Kill 'em all!”, it just states that religion and communism are incompatible from an ideological point of view.

And from Mao
“Religion is poison.”

Again, this is a fair comment from the point of view of communism. They are ideologically at odds.

I’m not saying that Mao and Stalin weren’t evil little buggers, just that there’s zero evidence that their evil acts were perpetrated because they didn’t believe in God. And to continue to present correlation as causation just reduces the intellectual credibility of the claimant.

Please get some education otherwise than at atheist websites where you will never see this kind of information.

A clumsy and unfounded attempt at a slur. It’s always amusing hearing the ignorant tell people to check their facts…

Then I’ll repeat the question, which you have so far evaded:

What is the exception to the rule that it is wicked to punish the innocent?

It’s hardly fair to say I’ve evaded the question, when it wasn’t directed to me in the first place.

Try not to reach so far back as the OT (which you consider to be bogus) to make your case. And try very hard not to slam the God of the OT, as I recall you doing in another thread some time ago.

Well, it’s difficult not to when you consider what’s written about him. But as I haven’t posited an exception to the ‘rule’ you’re talking about, I have no need.

Here and now, the world we live in today. Give an instance that proves the above rule is not an objective rule. When is it just to punish the innocent?

I can’t think of a situation. That doesn’t make it an objective rule, of course, it just means that it conflicts with our societally-evolved morality. There may be a situation where punishing the innocent prevents the suffering of a larger group of innocents, but although that may justify punishing the smaller group, it doesn’t make it discretely just

However, I still think you’re asking me to justify a point of view that I haven’t expressed. Maybe you should be more careful.

 

[wanstronian]

False.

Please cite me the precise place I said this.

I did say that, **if **you could say that “I am of the opinion that human beings are worthy of profound respect” **and **you do not believe that there are moral facts, **then **you must mean “I prefer” when you say “I am of the opinion”, at least some of the time.

I must say, I feel rather misunderstood. I don’t know if I miscommunicated, or if you’re reading my posts too quickly, but I’ve been saying precisely the opposite of what you take me to be saying.

Okay, we may have got our wires crossed. You said:

When you opine something, this means that you (personally) hold it to be true. If you don’t believe that there is objective morality, then you don’t have an *opinions *about morality, only preferences.

in response to my comment to Granny in which I agreed with what I consider to be an opinion, rather than a ‘universal truth’ (which admittedly, was a phrase that I took literally when it seems it has a rather more specific definition). That opinion is that human beings are worthy of respect.

My problem with what you posted is that you seemed to be saying that this isn’t an opinion I hold, just a preference. My contention is that it’s both; that ‘opinion’ is a perfectly valid word to use. I (thought I had) clarified by stating that belief (in the sense of ‘opinion’) is not the same thing as preference.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[wanstronian]

It is a good comparison because both acts are unnatural.

So are wearing clothes, listening to iPods, driving cars, and using internet forums! You don’t see other animals doing any of those things… but you do see them engage in homosexual activity from time to time.

It seems that the everyday life of a human is less natural than that of other animals.

For a literal interpretation of ‘natural’ at least. That may not be the definition you’re using, but if not, then you’re using a subjective definition of the word to attempt objectively to judge another person’s behaviour; so the resultant judgement is utterly empty.

 

[dskysmine]

Cohabitation is a widespread problem and denying civil union to monogamous couples of any orientation doesn’t exactly help stop promiscuity.

You forget that, as we can see from countries that adopted the marriage to gay couples, it doesn’t help diminish promiscuity either…

One of the main points of the civil ceremony is to proclaim your love for each other and vow to stick together.

What a strange vow, that is broken by almost half the people who in fact commit to it…

Homosexuals who do that and remain together might just teach all those divorcees a thing or two.

It would be a “strange” day when practising homosexuals teach the Church anything on faith and morals… maybe homosexuals have a “better” source of morality that we should know of?

No one is asking to interfere with the sanctity of marriage in any religion.

Law is based on moral understanding… if we only consider the materialistic facts of man laws make no “fact” whatsoever. If law is contrary to our moral understanding we cannot follow it or abide by it.

The argument for changing the law in my country was simple:

1. 
   *]The status quo wrongly harmed a group of citizens.

1. 
   It is debatable to what that “harm” can be and what “wrongly” is.
   

   *]A society that does not wrongly harm its citizens is a better society.
   
   The harm is in treating citizens differently without sufficient cause.

   People are treated differently because they are different and because the state can only support different people.
   Only one person can be president…
   Only a number of people can go to the Senate…
   Only a number of people can be teachers…
   Only a number of people can be supported with unemployment wages…
   etc…
   Don’t forget that the states where gay marriage is permitted still have laws regarding marriage. Are you going to fight to change those last laws?
   

   Let me see if this switches on your icky center: The main police force in Spain is the Guardia Civil, a tough bunch who sign-on for a fixed term just like the army. There’s a cafe next to the barracks where some of the cops go for lunch. Two of them are holding hands because they are married (their Capitán allocated them married quarters, where a nanny is looking after their adopted kid). They are both men, and also probably both Catholic because most people are here. None of their colleagues bat an eyelid but one old guy in the corner looks away, remembering the old days. For better or for worse?

   Worse, without a doubt
   

   dskysmine and Charlemagne II
   
   When I asked the question about downloading music, it was to understand how those who believe in an objective morality obtain an answer. Thanks for your replies. :bowdown2:
   
   Why do your reasons and answers differ? You might say that timeless morals still involve a process of working out which ones apply and for what reasons, but I’m then entitled to ask how eternal truths help at all. I mean none of my reasons in post #133 are likely to be wired into our brains or held in any other objective domain. So if there are eternal moral truths beyond love, where are they and what’s the point?

   I see 3 possibilites:
   1 - Either me and Charlemagne were not talking about the same kind of “download”. (In this scenario we can both be right)
   2 - Either me or Charlemagne was not looking into actual moral grounds for it (which would result in one of us being wrong)
   3 - Either me and Charlemagne are basing our conclusions in a non objective morality (which would result in both of us being wrong).
   
   I suppose that 1 and 2 are the most likely, but I can’t ignore number 3.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Subjectively acquired morals need not change. We’re human and some morals will reflect that for all time. Others depend on the culture and so on. Jesus didn’t think it was such a good idea to stone adulterers to death anymore. I’d also say in passing that it’s wrong to ever torture anyone (or any animal) under any circumstances, but certain folk in a certain US base seem to disagree with my subjective assessment.

It’s difficult to make any sense of this. Are you saying that all morals are equally subjective and that all moral values are equally valid, even when you disagree with another person’s morals? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but I don’t know how else to take what you’ve just said.

Please clarify.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian

*For a literal interpretation of ‘natural’ at least. That may not be the definition you’re using, but if not, then you’re using a subjective definition of the word to attempt objectively to judge another person’s behaviour; so the resultant judgement is utterly empty. *

Whatever all that means!

wanstronian
*
I don’t think we ‘brag’ anything - some of us offer opinions, and back them up with observational justification, which I’m sure you’re familiar with so I won’t list them. I’m not sure whether we would be better off without religion. But I’m fairly sure we’d be no worse off.*

Your certainty is rather interesting, given the record of what life was like under the atheist rule in Germany, Russia, and China. What evidence can you bring forward to substantiate the claim that the world would be no worse off? You surely cannot cite a scientific study.

But the atheist Madalyn Murray O’Haire gives us a clue as to what the world might be like without religion. She was all for allowing children to have sexual relations as soon as they were interested in it.

So much for subjective moral values.