Objective Morals, Free Will, Afterlife

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3097699]How do you know that the the conscience of particular individuals to the greatest understanding of the true good has been clearly associated with the understanding hand and hand with the divine?

Societies that did not believe in a God vs. societies that do. Societies that do are always more law abiding. There have been numerous historical instances that you should be able to find. Whille there are many side effects of religion on society such as order and law, they are always greater than non religious societies. I believe you can look up the work of Emile Durkheim and see some of the stuff he said about religion and society. There have also been numerous studies on children in this regards; children who are of religious parent as opposed to childrren of non religious parents. The results are obvious. You should be able to find some.

How do you know that conscience is coming to greater understanding?

QED. When your society becomes more peaceful, when you yourself become more loving and fullfilled, when your logic and reasoning becomes more acute and wise. When you begin to see things as they truly are. How do you know that your belief that Santa Claus is not true as opposed to your belief when you were little that he did exist?

You seem to be saying that as we understand the good now our understanding of the good now has come the closet to the good (as we understand it now).

Through the use of our intellect in the correct manner we come to a greater understanding of what the good is. You yorself right now on this forum are seeking that which is good and attempting to use your intellect in the right manner. You have come to a forum in the hopes of someone possibly trying to explain to you the answers that you seek or reaffirm the answers that you believe to be true. Your intellect used in the proper manner has brought you here in search of correct sources or people who possibley may have the information you desire. Ask yourself: “What brought you here?” “Why a Catholic forum and not a Islamic, Buddist or atheistic philosophical website?”

What you will come to understand is that many of histories greatest thinkers were christain in origin. The Catholic Church boast far and wide some of the best educted and learned men of any institution that has ever existed. There are million sand million sof works dedicated to thology, philosphy and and othe raspects of human existence.

Thomas Aquinas is one of the best examples. He does not make the argument “because the Bible says so”, but rather appeals to human reason and intellect to make his arguments. What good is making an argument from a religious point of view if the person your talking to does not believe in God to begin with? That is why Thomas Aquinas goes through it step by step and builds and builds and spoon feeds you until your are gradual able to understand what he is saying.

Almost all law schools in the world use the teachings of Aquinas for their study of the law its that good. Aquinas’s Summa is a bit hard to read and comprehend in the original form but if you would like, i can reccomend several texts that put it into contemporary English which makes it easier to follow.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Human beings are not ants.

Of course not but you acted like actions that are harmful to the individual could not evolve because it is contrary to evolution. I was pointing out that there are many species that have individuals that act in ways that are harmful to the individual. Do you think these species evolved or do you think these behaviors had to be infused into the species by some outside force?

Of course. I There is more but start here before we move on.

I do not see any actual evidence in the quote. Can you provide the actual evidence and not just a discussion of how there is evidence and the type of evidence.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Richard Powers;3097665:

It has to do with what comes firts, the intellect or the emotion and also what proportions of what are present as i said above.

So how do you know that your faith in God does not come first from emotion? Would that not make your faith position just as emotion based as you feel all other positions are?

 

[Richard_Powers]

Joyousguard, I going to address this issue again because I do not think I was clear the first time.

You seem to be saying that as we understand the good now our understanding of the good now has come the closet to the good (as we understand it now).

You seem to be judging what the good actually is by looking the evolution of the understanding of the good. But it is almost axiomatic to say that today’s understanding of the good will be closest to the good as we understand it. Just because we feel things like rape and slavery are against the good does not mean that they actually are against an objective good or that an objective good exists. I do not see any independent evidence of objective good. Can you provide evidence that an objective good actually exists independent of human understanding?

 

[Richard_Powers]

Ask yourself: “What brought you here?” “Why a Catholic forum and not a Islamic, Buddist or atheistic philosophical website?”

I do post on other forums that are different religions and ones that are atheistic and ones that have nothing to do with religious issues.

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3100261]Of course not but you acted like actions that are harmful to the individual could not evolve because it is contrary to evolution. I was pointing out that there are many species that have individuals that act in ways that are harmful to the individual. Do you think these species evolved or do you think these behaviors had to be infused into the species by some outside force?

Atheistic evolution has no morality other than what is best for society and an attempt to avoid pain and seek pleasure. Murder has come to be wrong because it causes chaos in a society and the people you murder are important tools or cogs in the wheel of that society. Murder is wrong because it causes pain. Pain is bad and therefore something to be avoided. Murder is wrong because you serve a purpose and because we are a hedonistic society that tries to avoid pain. You have no right to life and no natural rights at all. “I won’t kill you because I need you to work my fields. I won’t kill you because it will cause you pain in dying and others pain at your loss. Your life has no meaning and the only reason you are not killed is becaus eof the effect it would have. Your life itself is meaningless until an effect happens. You are merley a cause and nothing more.” I think that would sum things up.

 

[Joyousguard]

continued…

I do not see any actual evidence in the quote. Can you provide the actual evidence and not just a discussion of how there is evidence and the type of evidence.

I answer that, As stated above (1), there is understood to be an effect of God’s gratuitous will in whoever is said to have God’s grace. Now it was stated (109, 1) that man is aided by God’s gratuitous will in two ways: first, inasmuch as man’s soul is moved by God to know or will or do something, and in this way the gratuitous effect in man is not a quality, but a movement of the soul; for “motion is the act of the mover in the moved.” Secondly, man is helped by God’s gratuitous will, inasmuch as a habitual gift is infused by God into the soul; and for this reason, that it is not fitting that God should provide less for those He loves, that they may acquire supernatural good, than for creatures, whom He loves that they may acquire natural good. Now He so provides for natural creatures, that not merely does He move them to their natural acts, but He bestows upon them certain forms and powers, which are the principles of acts, in order that they may of themselves be inclined to these movements, and thus the movements whereby they are moved by God become natural and easy to creatures, according to Wisdom 8:1: “she . . . ordereth all things sweetly.” Much more therefore does He infuse into such as He moves towards the acquisition of supernatural good, certain forms or supernatural qualities, whereby they may be moved by Him sweetly and promptly to acquire eternal good; and thus the gift of grace is a quality.

Reply to Objection 1. Grace, as a quality, is said to act upon the soul, not after the manner of an efficient cause, but after the manner of a formal cause, as whiteness makes a thing white, and justice, just.

Reply to Objection 2. Every substance is either the nature of the thing whereof it is the substance or is a part of the nature, even as matter and form are called substance. And because grace is above human nature, it cannot be a substance or a substantial form, but is an accidental form of the soul. Now what is substantially in God, becomes accidental in the soul participating the Divine goodness, as is clear in the case of knowledge. And thus because the soul participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of the Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a less perfect way than the soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its mode of being.

Reply to Objection 3. As Boethius [Pseudo-Bede, Sent. Phil. ex Artist] says, the “being of an accident is to inhere.” Hence no accident is called being as if it had being, but because by it something is; hence it is said to belong to a being rather to be a being (Metaph. vii, text. 2). And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be in act with this accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, “created in Jesus Christ in good works.”

newadvent.org/summa/2110.htm#4

You will see by looking through the Summa that it takes quite a long time before certain questions can be answered. Each previous answer and sicussion is needed to build up to thenext discussion. Each part is a floor and the floor above can not be reached without the floor below. Its best to start reading: newadvent.org/summa/2.htm (but this is the reference for the entire work: newadvent.org/summa/2.htm)

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers

So how do you know that your faith in God does not come first from emotion?

The very fact that I don’t let my emotions cloud my judgement and approach the subject in a very logical rational manner with emotion being subjugated at first. It’s a lot like falling in love. You know what you feel for this person but sometimes you have to take a step back and think things through. (i don’t think we need to talk about the process, it’s pretty safe to say as guys we’ve all been love sick and smitten at onepoint or another and we were not always thinking too clearly all the time ) As we step back we let our reason take over and start asking more important questions then just am I physically attracted to this person etc. So to is it with God but I doubt very much that a deep blinding love of God happens first and the rest follows. I think its a gradual process rather than getting hit by a truck.

Would that not make your faith position just as emotion based as you feel all other positions are?

Love of God doe snot exactly come first to us but rather developes the more we come to understand God. It would be like falling in love with someone you have never met nor know anything about. So too is it with God. You can’t love God if you don’t know God.

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers:

You seem to be judging what the good actually is by looking the evolution of the understanding of the good. But it is almost axiomatic to say that today’s understanding of the good will be closest to the good as we understand it. Just because we feel things like rape and slavery are against the good does not mean that they actually are against an objective good or that an objective good exists. I do not see any independent evidence of objective good. Can you provide evidence that an objective good actually exists independent of human understanding?

All humans seek the good or the percieved good naturally, even murderes and rapists. No one seeks that which is bad. We either seek that which is truly good (family, love, xbox 360 ) or the percieved good (drugs, gratuitous sex, PS3 ). While we may actually seek a false good it does not change in the slightest that humanity seeks the good in general. The question becomes "How can we distinguish the actual good from the percieved good or the objective good from the percieved (or sometimes subjective) good?

Since this answer is way too long for me to post I’ll just copy and past the link to find it: newadvent.org/summa/2002.htm

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3100412]I do post on other forums that are different religions and ones that are atheistic and ones that have nothing to do with religious issues.

The question is “why here?”

You clearly are a man who seeks the truth. You desire answers to questions that you have asked. The answers you have recieved have not statiated your thirst for knowledge and understanding. You got to the many different venues and forums seeking what you desire and have not been satisfied with the response. Something is missing, some things simly do not add up. What is it that you’re missing that will complete the puzzle and put everything in its proper place? Why do the inadequate responses that you recieve not convince you that a belief in some sort of higher power is false and those that believe in it are simply niavely following something just because?

You seem like a man who is very intellegence and that intellegence leads you not to exclude any possibility quite yet. You do not quite believe in a God but the thinker in you wishes to confirm this belief. What is it that nags at the back of your mind and won’t let you quite put your belief that there is no God into a fact?

You have no doubt come across so many people who defend their belief in God by their faith and the Bible. Why is it that you can not accept that these people are deluded into believing in something that does not exist? Their devotion is enviable but why would they believe in something no more real than the Easter Bunny? The average person can’t defend their beliefs in a logical reasonable manner. Why not check it off your list as being false and move on to curing cancer or balancing the budget?

What drives you to ask these questions? Yes it is a quest for knowledge and understanding but what drives that quest? Just something to think about:thumbsup:

 

[Richard_Powers]

Joyousguard, I am sorry but your answers seem like a lot of double talk. I have asked you for evidence that an actual objective good exists and all you do is quote stuff that is not actual evidence for anything just arguments based on assumptions. Can you just provide the direct evidence that an actual objectivegood exists? And can you put into your own words instead of quoting?

The very fact that I don’t let my emotions cloud my judgement and approach the subject in a very logical rational manner with emotion being subjugated at first.

But you assume that everyone that does not base their view of the good on God as basing their view of the good on emotions. How do you know that you are not basing your beliefs on emotions while they are?

Atheistic evolution has no morality other than what is best for society and an attempt to avoid pain and seek pleasure. Murder has come to be wrong because it causes chaos in a society and the people you murder are important tools or cogs in the wheel of that society. Murder is wrong because it causes pain. Pain is bad and therefore something to be avoided. Murder is wrong because you serve a purpose and because we are a hedonistic society that tries to avoid pain. You have no right to life and no natural rights at all. “I won’t kill you because I need you to work my fields. I won’t kill you because it will cause you pain in dying and others pain at your loss. Your life has no meaning and the only reason you are not killed is becaus eof the effect it would have. Your life itself is meaningless until an effect happens. You are merley a cause and nothing more.” I think that would sum things up.

Your reaction seems to be entirely emotion based. How do you know that an evolutionary view morality is wrong? How do you know that natural rights exists? What is a right without any remedy? What remedy exists for a natural right that is not also a legal right?

(Also you have a distorted view of evolution if you think selection can occur at the society level or that pain or pleasure are selected for.)

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3101017]Joyousguard, I am sorry but your answers seem like a lot of double talk. I have asked you for evidence that an actual objective good exists and all you do is quote stuff that is not actual evidence for anything just arguments based on assumptions. Can you just provide the direct evidence that an actual objectivegood exists? And can you put into your own words instead of quoting?

By no means whatsoever. You came here seeking answers to your questions. This is not something that can be done easily and if your looking for an answer that can be found on a piece of paper that is inside a cookie you are mistaken.

I had hoped that the quotes I put would cause you to go to the Summa and start reading yourself but I guess I was mistaken.

You can not put the the tower on the castle before the foundation is built first. That is why Aquinas painstakingly goes through digging a hole, building the foundation and then throwing up some walls.

Let me try to summarize what took Aquinas pages and pages to argue out.

(this line of reasoning is going to lead to another big question to answer and I think you’ll spot it right off the bat. Essentially we are going backwards and building from the top down)

First and foremost, I believe we have agreed that all people seek the good and in turn we may say that they all seek a subjective good (percieved good) or an objective good (actual good).

Let us start with the question “Can anything be proven objectively?” That is to say, “Can you prove something is one way and never not some other way?” The answer is yes. We look at the work of Descartes and his very famous metaphysical undertsanding of “I think therefore I am”. The very simple reason that I am able to think proves the fact that I am objectively in existence and that in fact I am not “not existing”. If I can think I exist and if I do exist this is an objective truth and not based upon some sort of subjectivity which in itself would prove my existence as well because one can not feel they exist with out existing in the first place. One’s subjective feelings have no baring on the objective reality of a situation. No matter how much I may feel that I do not exist or believe that I do not exist it will never change the fact that I do in fact exist because merely doubting that I exist proves that my subjective opinion is false. Therefore, we will conclude that objective does in fact exist, because if it didn’t we would not be having a discussion and this converstaion could never take place.

Objective reality exists in the natural world, gravity is an example of this. All scientific methods attempt to approach the world around us in a very objective manner and try and measure and document things very precisely. Gravity exists because we can measure it and prove it exists.
continued…

 

[Joyousguard]

give me a little time until I can finish my post and then respond. I have to leave but I’ll finsih it as soon as I get home and then you can respons in completion:thumbsup:

 

[Richard_Powers]

give me a little time until I can finish my post and then respond. I have to leave but I’ll finsih it as soon as I get home and then you can respons in completion:thumbsup:

Cool. I will look forward to it.

 

[Joyousguard]

Now, if the objective exists, can objective morality exist? That is to say, does some sort of morality exists independent of human beings? If there is objectivity found in nature would it not stand to reason that there is objectivity found in man and thus the realm of morality? The answer is yes. Now this is the point where I am going to lose you to the world of theology.

Part of the human conscience is learned, that is to say that a portion of the human conscience is passed on from person to person, father to son etc. However, the nature of man is to seek the good. This is as fundamental as it gets. Just as it is fundamental for man to want to father offspring and for man to seek companionship. Humanity has an inclination to the good. Not only that, but they have an inclination to objectify the good just as the try to objectify the natural world.

Now the issue you raised was whether truth is subjective or whether truth can be objective.Note the following conversation Socrates has with Protagoras, a man who believed truth to be subjective. Socrates refutes this belief, showing through their dialogue that truth must be objective.

Protagoras: Truth is relative, it is only a matter of opinion.
Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.
Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of it being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do
Socrates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.

Truth as subjective is self defeating. Therefor, truth must be objective.

But you assume that everyone that does not base their view of the good on God as basing their view of the good on emotions. How do you know that you are not basing your beliefs on emotions while they are?

No I do not belieev that people base all their believes on subjectivity. I said earlier that I believe many of the beliefs peopl have come on the other side of beliefs of a divien nature and that they simply erase the divine part. They are not really pushed to defend their beliefs per se because the end result is the same. Not to many people will ask a person why they think murder is wrong but are content with the fact that they agree that murder is in fact wrong.

I try very hard to make sure that my emotions do not lead me too far astray. Like I said earlier, us guys know exactly what are emotions have done to us when we were a bit younger and niave when it came to the opposite sex. As we grew more experienced and learned we gradually understood that some of these emotional feelings are just feelings of lust and really arn’t founded on too much. It takes awhile for our head to get a hold of our hearts and help us decided if what we feel is true or just a fleeting sensation. Our objectivity steps in and overides our subjectivity or in many cases may even confirm what are heart felt to begin with. I am not advocating an emotionless being but a being that is at least logical in the manner in which they discern what is true and what is false. Anger will not tell us what is true or false. Happiness can not tell us what is true or false. they may help point us in the right direction and give us the endurance to continue on the path that our intellect has chosen but we must not be guided by the passions alone.

 

[Joyousguard]

Your reaction seems to be entirely emotion based. How do you know that an evolutionary view morality is wrong? How do you know that natural rights exists? What is a right without any remedy? What remedy exists for a natural right that is not also a legal right?

This will bring us to the next step of the conversation but I’ll stop here toill we can reach a consensus and then proceed on.

(Also you have a distorted view of evolution if you think selection can occur at the society level or that pain or pleasure are selected for.)

Please clarify. i think i know what you are saying but I want to be sure.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Now, if the objective exists, can objective morality exist? That is to say, does some sort of morality exists independent of human beings? If there is objectivity found in nature would it not stand to reason that there is objectivity found in man and thus the realm of morality? The answer is yes. Now this is the point where I am going to lose you to the world of theology.

OK, you did lose me. I agree that there are things that are objectively true. We can see objective truths in mathematics and logic. We can also discover scientific truths (these are a little different in that they cannot be absolutely proved.)

I see no reason to that because 2+2=4 is an objective truth or that because atoms objectively exist that is means that objective morals truths exists. What is logic behind this move? I can test scientific truths. How can I test a moral truth? I

I will respond to the rest of the post once we hash out this point.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Please clarify. i think i know what you are saying but I want to be sure.

It sounded like you were presenting a group selection view. Also pleasure and pain are not things that can be selected for by evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3102302]OK, you did lose me. I agree that there are things that are objectively true. We can see objective truths in mathematics and logic. We can also discover scientific truths (these are a little different in that they cannot be absolutely proved.)

I see no reason to that because 2+2=4 is an objective truth or that because atoms objectively exist that is means that objective morals truths exists. What is logic behind this move? I can test scientific truths

I wanted to make sure that we agree on the fact that there at least objective truths in this world. You’d be suprised as to how many people you comeacross who don’t believe this.

How can I test a moral truth?

First and foremost, let us look back at the converstaion bewteen Socrates and Protageras:

Protagoras: Truth is relative, it is only a matter of opinion.
Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.
Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of it being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do
Socrates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates

If truth is not subjective, because subjective truth is self defeating, then truth must be objective instead.

Can we agree upon thes previous statement before we attempt to try and “test moral truth”?

 

[Joyousguard]

It sounded like you were presenting a group selection view. Also pleasure and pain are not things that can be selected for by evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

No, merely that anything can be justified if morality is subjective. If this is the case, people becoem more of a thing or a tool and their lives are only as important as the function they perform.

In regrds to the pleasure and pain, that would be a detrmining factor in deciding what might be right or wrong. If its painful it would probably be avoided, if it was pleasurable it would probably be sought. Certain things in our society would be based right and wrong on the pleasure or lack there of that they give. That’s a scary possibility.