Objective Morality

[LaSalle]

I’m talking with my God daughter about objective morality. It started out with her posting a picture campaigning the abolition of the death penalty (Singapore just hanged a guy) and it led the conversation down a rabbit hole where she ended up saying that the DP was not morally right.

Do you know where I can find material on why morality is objective and who decides this?

 

[Reepicheep]

Hm.

“there is an objective morality” and “the death penalty is morally wrong” do not seem to me to be contradictory statements.

Your god-daughter may be wrong about the death penalty but she does not seem to me to be disputing the existence of objective moral standards.

 

[Bookcat]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2267

Not sure exactly what you seek - but there are some parts of the Catechism that can be of help.

 

[Bookcat]

I’m talking with my God daughter about objective morality. It started out with her posting a picture campaigning the abolition of the death penalty (Singapore just hanged a guy) and it led the conversation down a rabbit hole where she ended up saying that the DP was not morally right.

Do you know where I can find material on why morality is objective and who decides this?

The Death Penalty - in the Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2267

Pope St. John Paul II

"Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”"

(w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html number 56)

Can one campaign for the abolition of the DP? Yes.

In fact Bishops and Popes have sought to intervene in cases.

Pope Francis has very much been against its use these days. That it is “impossible to imagine” basically the States not having the means to protect the public in other ways.

 

[LaSalle]

Hm.

“there is an objective morality” and “the death penalty is morally wrong” do not seem to me to be contradictory statements.

Your god-daughter may be wrong about the death penalty but she does not seem to me to be disputing the existence of objective moral standards.

Hahahaha, yeah, I summarized it … big time. Essentially, she believes that no one has the right to take a human life. ‘Who are we to play God’, and that went to the morality of any given issue because I said that the DP was not a morally wrong act. And the topic got turned into who decides what is and isn’t moral. She is confused on this point, hence my questions.

 

[LaSalle]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2267

Not sure exactly what you seek - but there are some parts of the Catechism that can be of help.

Thanks Bookcat. I believe the first link is helpful, although, I am beginning to realise that I will not find something that lists out what is or isn’t morally right or wrong.

 

[LaSalle]

The Death Penalty - in the Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2267

Pope St. John Paul II

"Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”"

(w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html number 56)

Can one campaign for the abolition of the DP? Yes.

In fact Bishops and Popes have sought to intervene in cases.

Pope Francis has very much been against its use these days. That it is “impossible to imagine” basically the States not having the means to protect the public in other ways.

I find that most discussion I have seen so far and all of the encyclicals I have read focus on defending society and rehabilitating the guilty person. But in all those cases, it’s about defending the public from that particular person and not a class of persons, and never about how the DP can be a crucial part in a grander strategy. See this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1051148&page=8

 

[Bookcat]

I am beginning to realise that I will not find something that lists out what is or isn’t morally right or wrong.

As one reads the section on the Commandments one will yes find what is wrong. And lists of virtues are helpful as to the right.

A good text on Catholic Moral Theology can be helpful as well as a good examination of Conscience shop.catholic.com/a-contemporary-adult-guide-to-conscience-for-the-sacrament-of-confession.html.

 

[Bookcat]

Some things are “intrinsically evil” - where they can never be “right”.

Such as a direct abortion or blasphemy.

That too will play into discussions of morality.

 

[LaSalle]

As one reads the section on the Commandments one will yes find what is wrong. And lists of virtues are helpful as to the right.

A good text on Catholic Moral Theology can be helpful as well as a good examination of Conscience shop.catholic.com/a-contemporary-adult-guide-to-conscience-for-the-sacrament-of-confession.html.

Actually, I wasn’t thinking of personal actions, more generic ones like abortion, IVF, death penalty etc. and why they are deemed wrong/right.

 

[Bookcat]

Actually, I wasn’t thinking of personal actions, more generic ones like abortion, IVF, death penalty etc. and why they are deemed wrong/right.

See the Catechism for many of them (Commandments section).

And good works of Catholic Moral Theology for details.

 

[Rau]

Hahahaha, yeah, I summarized it … big time. Essentially, she believes that no one has the right to take a human life. ‘Who are we to play God’, and that went to the morality of any given issue because I said that the DP was not a morally wrong act. And the topic got turned into who decides what is and isn’t moral. She is confused on this point, hence my questions.

There is ample support in the bible and the CCC for the position that Capital Punishment is not intrinsically evil, ie. that there can be circumstances when it is a moral act. This particular “right to kill” as punishment is reserved to the State only.

Any particular instance of CP is a moral act of those who pursue it when they act out of good intentions and they reasonably believe that more good than evil will come of the act. Of course, an alternative act that produces greater good and/lesser harm is a preferable act. But this assessment of consequences is prudential and each of us may judge differently.

Your god-daughter may certainly conclude that, these days, in a country like Singapore - CP generally does more harm than good and thus should rarely, or perhaps never, be used. But there is no basis to conclude that, as a matter of principle, CP per se is an act beyond the righteous authority of the State.

 

[Bradski]

Some things are “intrinsically evil” - where they can never be “right”.

Black and white or sliding scale?

 

[Rau]

Black and white or sliding scale?

Intrinsically evil acts, properly understood and recognised, are B&W as to which side of neutral. But yes, some are blacker than others. Eg. Murder is blacker than theft - both are always wrong. But not all thefts are equally evil.

 

[Russell_SA]

I’m talking with my God daughter about objective morality. It started out with her posting a picture campaigning the abolition of the death penalty (Singapore just hanged a guy) and it led the conversation down a rabbit hole where she ended up saying that the DP was not morally right.

Do you know where I can find material on why morality is objective and who decides this?

From a point of view outside of the faith:
Objective morality only exists once you have selected your point of reference. Your reasons for picking your point of reference is just a reflection on who you are at that point. It may change. Example: Picking the reference point of the game of chess will make the move of intentionally placing your king in checkmate as objectively bad in the idea of wanting to win at chess within the game of chess. So once you’ve decided to pick your deity, for what ever reasons you have reached, as a reference point for objective morality, then you go into researching what that deity has stated about this issue.

If you don’t find the answers to the question through your deity and documentation on what that deity has on the issue, then you are left with needing to pick a new reference point for objective morality on that issue. Human well-being, Reducing harm to sentient creatures, etc.

If you still can’t find a reason for objective morality on this issue, then you have to question whether or not the assumption of this moral issue has an objective standard at all or if it is a moral issue at all. Go back to your assumptions.

Basically if you can not find answers to your questions you have to step back and look at the assumptions of the question and question those.

Be careful with objective morality referenced from a deity. This stinks of might makes right. It’s basically being in a room and instead of asking everyone that could be affected by the moral issue what their (name removed by moderator)ut is on the moral question, you went and asked only the biggest and strongest person in the room. Their power over everyone else does not make that person’s response a moral one. If the deity has a standard of morality that it imposes on people and those people are too ignorant to understand why that position is a moral issue at all or why it is immoral, it is not the people’s fault for being held accountable for that because they are unconvinced that is a moral issue to begin with or even that it is a moral problem. People have to understand the laws they are being held accountable to so that they can see why it is fair, moral, etc. Otherwise it just comes across as a bully imposing it’s will on the group that does not have the power to push back.

If we are too thick to understand the deity’s morality, then that responsibility falls on god for making us this way. What kind of deity creates a being to thick to understand it’s morality that will be used to judge those people in the end?

 

[animalis]

Consider the commentaries for I Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:21.

dhspriory.org/thomas/

With the light of this: There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh (vis. disordered self-love). Rom 8:1

 

[Bradski]

Intrinsically evil acts, properly understood and recognised, are B&W as to which side of neutral. But yes, some are blacker than others. Eg. Murder is blacker than theft - both are always wrong. But not all thefts are equally evil.

So sliding scale.

 

[PRmerger]

Black and white or sliding scale?

Yes.

Some things are black and white: it is never permissible to torture babies for fun. It is never permissible to kill your daughter for being raped.

Sliding scale: lots of other things.