Objective Morality

[inocente]

Your faith in humanity is touching.

Thanks for your sympathy, but really it’s not necessary, it’s called empiricism.

Please point us to a successful secular democracy that doesn’t rely on God to make people do the right thing.

I’ll go with all of them, given that secular = not having any connection with religion. The operative word in tyranny is tyranny. Otherwise I’m not sure how to respond to that post except that it sounds like a different topic. You would need to phrase the OP so that it avoids the ban on atheist threads.

Objective morality, if it exists, should refer to actions that are always good or evil, without exception. To say that no such actions exist requires that one be able to prove that there are exceptions to the rule.

If that was for me then please go back and read the third paragraph in my post #98 - you can’t claim the high ground with that argument.

But maybe I could if I wanted: Don’t put deception on your list or you’ll commit a sin when lying to the Gestapo while sheltering Jews. Killing is also verboten without any exceptions to avoid all the military going to hell. Etc.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

I’ll go with all of them, given that secular = not having any connection with religion.

Then I suppose you would have to include the U.S.A. as a secular government, except that the U.S. government does not suppress religion as it was suppressed in the secular societies of Russia, Germany, and China. In fact, our currency motto is still religious. Moses holding the tablets of the Ten commandments sits atop the entrance to the Supreme Court. Congress pays for a Congressional chaplain, a practice that was endorsed at the constitutional Convention by Ben Franklin and company. The President, when sworn in, traditionally puts his hand on a Christian Bible, etc. etc. The First Amendment, thank God, specifically protects religion from the persecution of a secular government.

The U.S.A. is still considered a Christian nation; but if it were not Christian, I daresay Christians would be fair game for persecution as they have been in those grand models of secular governments in Russia, Germany, China, Spain, Mexico, etc.

*Don’t put deception on your list or you’ll commit a sin when lying to the Gestapo while sheltering Jews. *

When confronted with the necessity of choosing between two evils, always choose the lesser one. That also is an objective rule of morality. If you can find an exception, I’d like to know about it.

*Killing is also verboten without any exceptions to avoid all the military going to hell. Etc. *

I’m sure you know that the commandment forbids** murder**, not killing in self defense. But even soldiers are subject to court martial and imprisonment for murder.

Where armies have been wrongly used against defenseless populations, the Church has found cause to condemn as unjust wars. The teachings of the Church have been consistent, even when certain immoral popes and bishops may have sinned against those teachings. The Church teaches that pedophilia is objectively wrong, even though priests and bishops have been found guilty of it. This is an objective teaching of the Church, and there is no exception to it.

By the way, you did not answer the three questions I asked in post # 100.

 

[inocente]

Then I suppose you would have to include the U.S.A. as a secular government

I’m not American and know little of your ways. Without an atheist present to discuss the merits of secular democracies, sooner or later I think a mod will have to jump in. You can always start another thread.

When confronted with the necessity of choosing between two evils, always choose the lesser one. That also is an objective rule of morality. If you can find an exception, I’d like to know about it.

Yes it’s an excellent rule of thumb , but why would I want there to be an exception?

By the way, you did not answer the three questions I asked in post # 100.

I thought I did when I said “please go back and read the third paragraph in my post #98”. Here:

There’s also a possible issue in the difference between objectivity and collective subjectivity, which is fertile ground for misunderstandings. The latter says that there are universal concepts that are only to be found inside our heads, and much of what we take to be objective cannot be found outside our heads.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

The latter says that there are universal concepts that are only to be found inside our heads, and much of what we take to be objective cannot be found outside our heads.

Why should we need to find objective morals outside our heads? Morals belong in our heads, not in the physical world outside us, even though our morals impinge on the physical world.

Please clarify?

I asked earlier:

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

Again, what was your answer?

 

[JDaniel]

Are you able to describe what a value claim is and the process involved in arriving at that designation?

Are you able to describe what a fact claim is and the process involved in arriving at that designation?

Are you able to describe what is meant by a claim, that is, who, how, what, when, where, why, cost?

Thank you.

Grannymh:

I see that you did not get your question(s) answered. May I try?

A moral is a value, but, not just any “value”, rather it is the fundamental value, and is generally based upon whether the actions of a man (or, woman) are “good,” and, perhaps even the degree of good. We say, or describe, a man to be a “good” businessman, artist, actor, athlete, speaker, employee, politician, and so on. But, there is one final value we ascribe to a man even if he is extraordinarily good at being any of the above and that is, he may be a “bad man.” On the other hand, he may be horrible at being any of the above, or anything else he attempts, but, he may be considered a “good man.” More specifically, a moral is generally considered an aspect of a man, based on conduct that is “good” as opposed to “bad.”

Moral values are understood to be those which make a man good precisely as a man. They are “personal” but not just because a person has them, but also, because they are the expressions of each person’s unique personality, emanating from the innermost center of his being, and, are shown to us by the acts of his free choice. It is these free choices that are responsible for determining the character of a man. Moral values can only exist in a free being and in his free actions. They must be universal in that they must hold for everyone under the same conditions. They must be self-justifying. They must be preeminent over all other values (such as beauty, intelligence, witty, etc.). They imply obligation.

When an action is such that it meets, or exceeds, most or all of the criteria generally regarded by mankind as exemplary, it is good. Such a good is one that is intrinsic; it is a perfect good. It could also be called an ideal, or even one that is ideally good. It is good, not as leading to something else, not as a means useful to something further, but in itself. It has value because it has what it ought to have to be the fullest expression of itself. This is the highest sense of “good.” If it is good for something else it is presupposed by another that it is good for. If it is good only inasmuch as it is leading up to something more good, it is not good in the highest sense. But, in its highest sense it is merely good for no other reason than itself.

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

Morals belong in our heads, not in the physical world outside us, even though our morals impinge on the physical world.

Please clarify?

Are you saying that morality is all instinct?

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.

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 …

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

Go on now, stop it. You know I’ll say none. I might say that homosexuals are innocent and shouldn’t be punished for wanting to express their love, or that animals shouldn’t be punished by being killed for the pleasure of hunters and so on, but I guess that depends on our subjective view of innocence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
*
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 …*

What is hard wired into our brains, but not always obeyed because we have free will, is the law that we should do good and avoid evil. Theft, for example, is considered a crime in every civilization. That’s hard wire, even though thieves have convinced themselves otherwise. In Catholic theology that is called the Natural Law. You may, if you wish, call it instinct. But I understand that “instinct” has become a dirty word among liberals, except for some homosexuals who believe they have been hard-wired to be homosexuals.

“My genes made me do it!”

I might say that homosexuals are innocent and shouldn’t be punished for wanting to express their love,

Human love of any kind is always innocent and should never be punished. That said, not all expressions of love are rational or defensible. A man may love his sheep, but anal sex with sheep would not be a rational expression of love so much as a perverse expression of lust. God did not mean us to have sex with our sheep. And He created us male and female for the same reason.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

dsk

If your argument is only that morality didn’t exist before Humans were created and no “evil” or “good” existed, accordingly anyone can argue that God was not “good” nor “evil” and hence it makes no sense to assert that the “Catholic God” exists… understand?

It didn’t exist on this planet, that’s for sure!

 

[dskysmine]

This is an edit of a post I made today on the other thread that may explain.

First, I’m worrying that we are getting into Romans 14 territory. We are clearly both astonished at each other, and if timeless moral truths are part of the Catholic faith then I’m not trying to undo them, just argue a position.

There’s also a possible issue in the difference between objectivity and collective subjectivity, which is fertile ground for misunderstandings. The latter says that there are universal concepts that are only to be found inside our heads, and much of what we take to be objective cannot be found outside our heads.

God is love. I’m saying that through love God gave us a process to decide what is good and bad. We may have a few moral instincts such as don’t bite the hand that feeds you, and much of our morality doesn’t change much, giving the appearance of being timeless.

The Rom 14 issue is that you can say I’m whittling away at the reasons why we should believe, and I can argue that science may eventually cause you a minor upset by locating morality in dynamic processes in the brain.

For me, the moral teaching of the Gospel is an exploration of love. We come closer to God not by rigidly following laws but through a deeper revelation of love. We sin when we don’t act in love. 1 Cor 13 may be chocolate box, it may be simplistically (and accidentally?) paraphrased in All You Need Is Love, but even by itself, even for an atheist, it’s a mighty fine moral code.

We are fallen, but there are secular democracies that don’t rely on God to make people do the right thing, and many atheists, humanists, etc. who don’t go around doing evil. My position is that through love God equipped all of us to overcome our inclinations, and it is the only timeless moral truth we need. That’s what I mean by faith in humanity.

It seems to me that you are confusing some aspects what was said and what I said.
I apologise if I am mistaken about what I understood from this post but:
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.
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)
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 think atheists can recognize “good” almost as much as christians do, but they can only do so to some extent… If God is good and they do not recognize it we have to show them how it is not true. If we don’t we are being liars are we not?

 

[JDaniel]

The question is: “Are Morals only in our brains?” Is a Moral an Ideal? And, what is an ideal?

An Ideal, as an Ideal, does not exist in reality – IOW, it is not a material thing. It is not some sort of extant super human. Rather, it is that which belongs to a thing - a “thing” as simple as a man… It is a pattern of behavior that is universally (with the exception of a few morons) seen, and understood, to be more good than some other pattern(s) of behavior. It is these patterns, per se, that we consider in our minds in order to form judgments about. We already know what the Good is.

Now, and even though an Ideal does not exist as a Reality, it is not subjective: precisely as it is NOT arbitrary. It is a (certain) Knowledge that has the same kind of being in the mind that other knowledge has, since it has a basis in reality and reference to that reality. What we consider in making moral judgments are not imaginative or aesthetic ideals, rather they are ideals that tell us something qualitative, particularly, about the Reality they point back to.

A pretty good definition of it is: *The ideal is constructed by taking the various kinds of acts that experience shows us men perform, dropping from them all discordant notes, supplying all omissions, and heightening the whole to the limit of human ability. * – Right and Reason, Fr. Austin Fagothey, S.J.

Thus, morals do exist only in our brains, but, have an indisputable referent back to reality and those patterns men observe in other’s, as well as their own behaviors. This does not strip God of his being. He is still required by St. Thomas’s Fourth Proof – thank goodness! He is the pinnacle of the entire predicate of “Good.” There can be no other referent.

God bless,
jd

 

[wanstronian]

wanstronian

Objective morality, to me, means a code of morals that is immutable, universal, and holds true even if there are no sentient beings around to conform to it. The sort of code that God, if he existed, would put in place and say, “This is it. No deviations. No loose interpretations.”

Except for the bold part, I would agree to your definition. How could an objective morality exist if there was no one around to exercise it? In effect, what you are saying is that objective morality must be materialistic, or it cannot exist. That is, it must be composed of detectable atoms and molecules, and it must be possible to examine it under a microscope even if there were no humans in existence to examine it.

How do you figure that? Why must something be materialistic if it is to persist without humans (ignoring the potential presence of alien life for now)? Does 1+1 cease to be 2 without humanity? Could P equal not-P?

Under that criterion, God would cease to exist if humanity became extinct. Assuming you subscribe to the majority theistic opinion here that arbitrarily puts God beyond detection by physical means?

It seems we’re definitely working on different versions of ‘objective’ - are you talking about an ‘objective’ that is the product of consensus? If that is the case, then objective morality definitely exists. In fact, several of them do! Which one’s right, do you think?

If you insist on this part of your definition being valid, I would have to stop the discussion at this point, because there is no way I can make a case for objective morality if you insist that such a morality must be materialistically visible.

Well, you said that, not me. I don’t insist anything of the kind, so you have no reason to stop the discussion on those grounds.

In point of fact, morality as an attribute of humans, and humans only. Only with that concession would it be possible to prove the existence of objective morality … or even subjective morality for that matter.

I agree - morality is a human concept (again, ignoring alien life), a product of our societal evolution.

 

[wanstronian]

Huh?

When I say “It’s my opinion that the Earth revolves around the sun,” this is exactly translated by my **assertion **“The Earth revolves around the sun.” If not, then what has the former statement got that the latter statement doesn’t have?

To assert something means to say that it is true – in other words, to say that, in my opinion, it is true.

Ok, let’s make this real simple. You said upthread that an opinion is nothing more than a preference. I disagree. We’ll use Granny’s statement as an example to start with:

“My opinion is that the human person is worthy of profound respect.”
Here one is making a value claim, and to subsequently state:
“I prefer that human persons are treated with profound respect” is a valid conflation of the terms “opinion” and “preference.”

Now consider a fact claim.

“My opinion is that someone is trying to kill me.”
Now, do you really think that the statement “I prefer that someone is trying to kill me” means the same thing?

Hopefully this is clear now, and you can see that your conjecture that an opinion is the same as a preference, is incorrect.

But in any event, this rabbit hole is leading nowhere.

 

[wanstronian]

It’s certainly true that not all atheists are busy doing evil.

Nor all theists.

I’d remind you that the great tyrannies of the 20th Century came from countries whose leaders chose to persecute religion: Hitler, Stalin, Mao. All atheists.

Considering how intellectually bankrupt this statement is, and how often it has been exposed as such, I’m surprised it still gets bandied about so often. The intention, of course, is to imply that atheism *causes *evil acts, because an incredibly small subset of atheists also commit evil acts (as do a small subset of theists). Clearly this implication serves your purpose as a theist, but unfortunately the implication is unproven and your mindless repetition of this false mantra only serves to show how mindless you have been in your indoctrination.

Ideology is NOT the same thing as religious opinion.

p.s. Hitler was, by his own admission, a Christian. Not that this fact is necessary to demonstrate how apalling your logic is.

 

[wanstronian]

What exception is there to the rule that it is wicked to punish the innocent? What exception is there to the rule that a woman should never be raped?

You mean, like God either perpetrates or condones, in the bible?

 

[wanstronian]

What is hard wired into our brains, but not always obeyed because we have free will, is the law that we should do good and avoid evil. Theft, for example, is considered a crime in every civilization. That’s hard wire, even though thieves have convinced themselves otherwise. In Catholic theology that is called the Natural Law. You may, if you wish, call it instinct. But I understand that “instinct” has become a dirty word among liberals, except for some homosexuals who believe they have been hard-wired to be homosexuals.

“My genes made me do it!”

Human love of any kind is always innocent and should never be punished. That said, not all expressions of love are rational or defensible. A man may love his sheep, but anal sex with sheep would not be a rational expression of love so much as a perverse expression of lust. God did not mean us to have sex with our sheep. And He created us male and female for the same reason.

Wow - you’re just getting so much wrong in this thread! So much ill-considered repetition of bigoted rhetoric! Do you have all these snippets of pseudo-wisdom short-cutted on your desktop, like all your mined quotes of atheists that you wish were theists?

Let us take your most recent errors:

Firstly, your assertion that homosexuality is wrong. Current scientific wisdom is that sexual orientation is a product of both genetic make-up and environment. Animals (and let’s not pretend that humans are not also animals - that creationist wishful thinking is just so tired) demonstrate homosexual behaviour. It’s clear that homosexuality is not just a life choice (although celibacy is - but why should gay people abstain from a physical celebration of their love?)

And your damning refutation of this scientific opinion? … a book, of unknown authorship, that claims an invisible superman made a law that, if followed, would deprive thousands of people of happiness. Nice one, G.

People can’t choose who they love, and who they are attracted to.

Then, you appear to believe that a man’s love of his sheep is the same sort of love as that demonstrated by one human being to another! Sex with a sheep would not be consensual. Your analogy is simply awful.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian
*
Considering how intellectually bankrupt this statement is, and how often it has been exposed as such, I’m surprised it still gets bandied about so often.*

You shouldn’t be. Atheists often brag the world would be so much better off without religion. I’m just pointing out that this was certainly not the case in the atheistic dictatorships of the 20th century.

*p.s. Hitler was, by his own admission, a Christian. Not that this fact is necessary to demonstrate how apalling your logic is. *

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.”

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.”

And from Mao
“Religion is poison.”

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

Well, you said that, not me. I don’t insist anything of the kind, so you have no reason to stop the discussion on those grounds.

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?

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.

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?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

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?

This is explained easily in a world with subjective morals. Arguing from the perspective of one who believes in subjective morality-

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.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ok, let’s make this real simple. You said upthread that an opinion is nothing more than a preference.

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.

 

[inocente]

Human love of any kind is always innocent and should never be punished. That said, not all expressions of love are rational or defensible. A man may love his sheep, but anal sex with sheep would not be a rational expression of love so much as a perverse expression of lust. God did not mean us to have sex with our sheep. And He created us male and female for the same reason.

That comparison between the homosexual act and sheep is badly deficient in at least three ways: the sheep is not capable of human love, cannot consent to marriage, and cannot consent to sex with the man.

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.

That in turn is why so many Catholics in my country agreed with changing the law to allow homosexual marriage five years back. They thought it through for themselves “since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” – Rom 2:15 NIV.

I got there independently but Paul knew all along if only I had eyes to see. Thanks! :bowdown2: