Objective Morality

[inocente]

Well, it’s clear that you have eliminated free will as an option.

This is the only cogent argument that explains the universal phenomenon of conscience among human beings and the lack of it among animals.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with dskysmine? (see his post #186, third para).

 

[inocente]

God. Where do you think everything comes from?

Are there objective morals due to God, or no objective morals due to God? In other words, you’re not saying much there. If you’re arguing against instincts and subjectivity then you might like to propose an alternative mechanism.

How is it analogous? Where is the random mutation?

On non-instinctive matters like downloading music, we all think differently and a consensus evolves. Darwin didn’t corner the market on the word evolution. For instance, see how the word is used in Origin and Historical Evolution of Pontifical Diplomacy

What makes Christian morality “right” now?

Which Christian? Those of us who say the homosexual act is a sin or those of us who disagree? How do you get your objectively divine revelation of what is good when I have the same scripture and a different answer – is it because your Church is bigger than my church, that might is right?

How can you state that the minority was “right”?

I’m not the one arguing that no one in Germany saw the evil of Hitler, I’m simply pointing out that the majority in Germany at the time were probably Christians. Mussolini got to power in Catholic Italy, Franco in Catholic Spain. Was Russia awash with atheists or with Christians on the day before the Revolution?

If you lived in a world where everyone else but you were atheists that defended the death of religious people, you wouldn’t make the collective subject morality… they would!

I’d take my chances on that not happening, through faith in people - see next post to granny.

 

[inocente]

Because of relativism and the loss of Divine Revelation, discussions about morality this and morality that multiply ten-fold without ever getting to the basic objective truth regarding the human object of morality.

On the contrary, sweetie pie. This thread has been useful in contrasting faith in God with faith in people.

*In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But an Atheist, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” - Luke 10:30-37 NIV (with one edit)*

There’s no rulebook containing fix moral commands there, nor even any mention of God. A kid can work out a good understanding of compassion and our moral responsibilities from the parable without belief in God and without knowing any of the Law (well, I and my school-mates did anyway). We have a capacity for doing bad things but for most of the time most of us are good. God made us that way, and He also made us so we can work stuff out.

I’m probably a relativist if only I could work out what it means. Apparently, Aquinas was a divine commandist but that’s a bit of a mouthful.

 

[JDaniel]

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

inocente:

Can you imagine the most powerful exigency in the entire universe - the absolute most powerful being - so powerful, in fact, that none of us combined (nor all of us) could begin to stop him from doing whatever he wanted to, and, at the same time NOT having the source of morality - the GOOD - within Him as his nature? Omni-benevolence and Omnipotence go hand-in-hand.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

On the contrary, sweetie pie. This thread has been useful in contrasting faith in God with faith in people.

This sweetie prefers the whole pie – faith in God the Creator and faith in the human person, God’s creation. This is possible because God is an objective truth and so is the worthiness of human nature an objective truth.

I’m probably a relativist if only I could work out what it means

.

How about this attempt at the meaning for a relativist? A relativist believes that he or she has the power to determine objective truth by calling anything objective morality minus its foundation.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is part of human nature.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 355
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355

 

[inocente]

Can you imagine the most powerful exigency in the entire universe - the absolute most powerful being - so powerful, in fact, that none of us combined (nor all of us) could begin to stop him from doing whatever he wanted to, and, at the same time NOT having the source of morality - the GOOD - within Him as his nature? Omni-benevolence and Omnipotence go hand-in-hand.

No, nothing and no one constrains God. But then the source of morality is love, so …

 

[inocente]

This sweetie prefers the whole pie – faith in God the Creator and faith in the human person, God’s creation. This is possible because God is an objective truth and so is the worthiness of human nature an objective truth.

That’s so close to me that it would be angels on pinheads to debate it.

How about this attempt at the meaning for a relativist? A relativist believes that he or she has the power to determine objective truth by calling anything objective morality minus its foundation.

Then I’m not a relativist. Rats. Ooooh … I’ll be a relatively absolute theist instead (a RAT ).

 

[JDaniel]

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:

Inocente:

God comes to the universe with an entire set of top-of-the-class superlative predicates. Love is but one of many. It is incorrect to put all of our emphasis on just one. Although, if we were to, that would be the best one - in my opinion.

Remember, they all emanate from Infinity.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Inocente:

In America, we have a set of Laws (Laws derive from Morality) called, “Intellectual Property” Laws. When people began to sell their creative efforts, like music, ideas and books, it made sense that if the public wished them to continue - and not starve to stopping - we should protect the ownership of those things. Thus, we did.

Now, thieves can devise any sort of rationale they can conjure up to separate themselves from the criminal class. In this case, they came up with the argument that “if the law would leave people alone, more music would be sold than stolen.” Apparently, that is not the case. Nevertheless, it is still theft of intellectual property. The owner may do with his property what he wishes, but, it is his, and only his, to treat that way.

Let me know if this is unconvincing.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

1. 
   This is a rationale! Pure and simple. My efforts, and another persons efforts, like working on an assembly line at GM, results in the production of a “property.”, per se. Property, by its very nature presupposes possession-ship/ownership. If it doesn’t, Uncle Sam will take it!
   
   God bless,
   jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, I think most people these days would fervently agree that torture in any form is unjustified, which is one of the reasons why people sometimes turn up at the International Court of Justice and why the US lost face around the world over Guantanamo. In earlier times, however, I’m sure we could both think of instances where torture was justified. Times change, along with our collective morals.

It is intriguing that people seem to follow the utter nonsense spewed out by the anti-American media! So, no matter what, the annihilation of a half million people notwithstanding, by nuclear bomb is not worse than one or several people being tortured to obtain the information needed to stop it. That is sheer stupidity.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

inocente

*I’ve never heard of the woman, but she didn’t seem to have a whole load of impact on this. *

O’Haire was the woman who got the Supreme Court to ban prayer in public schools back in the 50s.

Minor correction, Charles, that landmark case was decided against us in the early 60’s, not the 50’s. Whew!

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

This is a rationale! Pure and simple.

Thank you! US intellectual property laws are aligned with international treaties (the first point on my list) so that stealing a foreigner’s property is also covered.

The owner may do with his property what he wishes, but, it is his, and only his, to treat that way.

Let me know if this is unconvincing.

It convinces me, but not everyone. Downloading music is an interesting case. Twenty years ago one would have to physically steal a CD, then computers allowed people to copy a friend’s CD, and now it is really easy – just find a torrent, download it, and you have a perfect copy of an entire CD in high quality audio. Everyone else is doing it, it’s soooo convenient, and the risk of being caught is negligible. As a result some folk wonder whether the Bible provides a get-out clause. No way José.

Sooner or later we’ll sort it out. For example, there are loads of legal Internet radio stations that play our favorite genre and introduce us to new music. I think new technology and education will stamp on this in time. Software theft is also hard to deal with – perhaps we’ll end up running all applications online.

It is intriguing that people seem to follow the utter nonsense spewed out by the anti-American media! So, no matter what, the annihilation of a half million people notwithstanding, by nuclear bomb is not worse than one or several people being tortured to obtain the information needed to stop it. That is sheer stupidity.

Well, in a way this is a good argument against objective morality - we see things differently.

In Europe a lot of people were very disappointed that the previous US administration condoned rendition, torture and lack of legal process, reducing the moral difference between the US and the terrorists. If there was good intelligence of a real and present danger of a WMD then it may be excusable as a last resort, but does torture even work as a reliable method of extracting information? I don’t know what goes on in other countries, perhaps we all do it.

But since we’ve gone political here (not a subject to discuss at dinner parties), again the US has less than 5% of the world population yet it spends more each year on its arsenal than China, Europe and Russia combined. Could that have anything to do with “Yankee go home”? Rather than watching claustrophobic paranoia on Fox, Americans might do better to get their news from the like of Al Jazeera or EuroNews - there’s a whole world out there, and compared with the Cold War it’s not that scary!

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you! US intellectual property laws are aligned with international treaties (the first point on my list) so that stealing a foreigner’s property is also covered.

You are correct.

It convinces me, but not everyone. Downloading music is an interesting case. Twenty years ago one would have to physically steal a CD, then computers allowed people to copy a friend’s CD, and now it is really easy – just find a torrent, download it, and you have a perfect copy of an entire CD in high quality audio. Everyone else is doing it, it’s soooo convenient, and the risk of being caught is negligible. As a result some folk wonder whether the Bible provides a get-out clause. No way José.

Interesting, that a person wouldn’t steal your car or your food, but couldn’t care less about the products of your intellectual labor. You are right again: “relativism” at its best!

Sooner or later we’ll sort it out.

I’m not so sure.

For example, there are loads of legal Internet radio stations that play our favorite genre and introduce us to new music. I think new technology and education will stamp on this in time. Software theft is also hard to deal with – perhaps we’ll end up running all applications online.

Which is already occurring. Citrix is a great platform for running software across the internet.

Well, in a way this is a good argument against objective morality - we see things differently.

Why do you think so?

In Europe a lot of people were very disappointed that the previous US administration condoned rendition, torture and lack of legal process, reducing the moral difference between the US and the terrorists. If there was good intelligence of a real and present danger of a WMD then it may be excusable as a last resort, but does torture even work as a reliable method of extracting information? I don’t know what goes on in other countries, perhaps we all do it.

The problem is that the various media would not let the whole story out. The gente over there only hear what is fed to them. Too bad. Even though the news here was reporting that US counter-intel was capturing a terror cell a week, in the years after 911, it was written in small print, posted somewhere in the middle of the newspaper, seen by nobody. That intel not only protected US citizens, but also, European citizens.

But since we’ve gone political here (not a subject to discuss at dinner parties), again the US has less than 5% of the world population yet it spends more each year on its arsenal than China, Europe and Russia combined. Could that have anything to do with “Yankee go home”? Rather than watching claustrophobic paranoia on Fox, Americans might do better to get their news from the like of Al Jazeera or EuroNews - there’s a whole world out there, and compared with the Cold War it’s not that scary!

Like one of our radio talkshow personalities used to say, “If it wasn’t for the US, the German people would be lamp shades.” The world forgets that they have us, the best police force in the world, to protect them. And, Americans have a lot of Love. Like God!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

BTW, that was German Jews and, I think, it was at Buchenwald that their skins were made into various artifacts. Sorry.

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

Why do you think so?

The fact that two Christians disagree about something as fundamental as justification for torture implies that there is no objective morality.

The world forgets that they have us, the best police force in the world, to protect them.

The rest of the world might see it differently. Does the US spend all those tax dollars out of the goodness of its heart or because it is looking after its own interests? Who asked the US to police the rest of the world? Where’s the signed agreement by the other 95% of the world wanting to being policed by the US?

I’m generally on the side of the US, but it would be cool if US media spent a lot more time covering the rest of the world. The reason why US citizens think they have to police the world is because they know very little about it, and we always fear the unknown. A less insular American public would be good for the US and the world.

 

[Timothy17]

The more I read threads, the more I believe that morality is a response to the universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect. Morality is how we treat a person, how we consider a person and so on. Immorality is when we don’t treat the person as we should. Obviously, the big word morality describes big actions. Courtesy describes actions on a milder scale.

The reason that a human person is worthy of profound respect is that he is created by God. God as the Creator has determined the value of the created one and has set the standards for behavior. The behavior of each individual is what gets him or her into heaven or not.

Blessings,
granny

Love God, love others.

Well put granny

P.S - God bless objective morality, the saviour of so many lives and defender of human happiness.

Pax,
Tim

 

[JDaniel]

The fact that two Christians disagree about something as fundamental as justification for torture implies that there is no objective morality.

Or, its not apropos, or, we can’t find it, etc., etc.

The rest of the world might see it differently. Does the US spend all those tax dollars out of the goodness of its heart or because it is looking after its own interests? Who asked the US to police the rest of the world? Where’s the signed agreement by the other 95% of the world wanting to being policed by the US?

Right beside those documents that contracted for our entry into enter WW’s I and II to stop tyrannous aggression - when we had no other reason to.

I’m generally on the side of the US, but it would be cool if US media spent a lot more time covering the rest of the world. The reason why US citizens think they have to police the world is because they know very little about it, and we always fear the unknown. A less insular American public would be good for the US and the world.

Yep. I can imagine that, while the Japanese were invading the Pacific Islands, and the Germans were taking over Europe and desiring the world.

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JDaniel
*
Minor correction, Charles, that landmark case was decided against us in the early 60’s, not the 50’s. Whew!*

Thanks for the correction. I was a young man in the late 50s, the issue was hot even then, and memory plays tricks.

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel
*
Minor correction, Charles, that landmark case was decided against us in the early 60’s, not the 50’s. Whew!*

Thanks for the correction. I was a young man in the late 50s, the issue was hot even then, and memory plays tricks.

Not a problemo. I knew that I was in grade school when it occurred, and I wasn’t going to let you get away with making me any older than I already am!

God bless,
jd