C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
You really are in this for the sport, aren’t you old fellow?
What else might you kill, or are you vegetarian?
- Status
What else might you kill, or are you vegetarian?
B
Bradski
Guest
I’m not sure what your point is meant to be, Ed. Is it that the reality of any given situation precludes relativity in regards to morality? That the status quo is the objective truth? That would be bizarre in the extreme. What if the people on the island decided to sacrifice every 5th child to appease their gods?
This couldn’t be simpler. Any and all moral problems (as opposed to facts) are relative to the situation. If you don’t believe that then present me with one that isn’t. And before you bang off an example such as: ‘Murder is wrong, and that is objective. Everyone knows that’, then you need to understand that that statement is relative in itself.
Consider this:
C: Taking someone’s life is wrong.
B: Not necessarily. It could be a justified killing during war.
C: OK, then I’ll qualify that. Taking someone’s life for no reason.
B: Not necessarily. It could be accidental.
C: OK, then I’ll qualify that. The premeditated taking of someone’s life.
B: Not necessarily. It may be lawful such as in an execution.
C: OK, then I’ll qualify that. If you kill someone and it is intentional, unlawful and premeditated, then that is murder and that is wrong.
And you cannot say that ‘Murder is the intentional, unlawful and premeditated taking of someone’s life’ is an objective fact. The whole phrase is littered with conditionals. Were you in a war situation? Well, the act is relative to that. Was it intentional? Well, the act is relative to that as well. Was it lawful? Well…you get the message by now. Qualifying and stating under which conditions a statement could be said to be objective makes the term ‘objective’ meaningless. You could do it with any statement and that would literally mean that there are no relative statements at all, which is patently ridiculous.
Now look at the other side of the debate. You say that there are objective truths to everything. If there are, then you should be able to produce pages of them. Yet you cannot offer a single one. If you can’t and nobody else can, then on what basis do you want me to accept that they exist?
G
grannymh
Guest
Apparently, you have forgotten that the basic fundamental truth is that the “Human person is worthy of profound respect.” That does not take up a lot of room on a page.
It would really be helpful if you googled “Moral Principles Definition.” It would help you to understand “applications.” If you still have trouble with a link, I would be glad to assist you. There can be a rare instance on Google where “Moral Principles Definition” sounds like you. If that happens, I will be happy to guide you. Your link is …
B
Bradski
Guest
I’ve already said that I don’t accept that.
If you have a point to make I’d appreciate you making it. I don’t intend looking for what you might mean. If you think anything I have written is incorrect or you do not agree with it, then please let me know.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Not that I have a problem with objective truth, but I need to point out that it’s unfair to compare naturalistic facts, like about the sun in our solar system, and normative facts, like if it’s right to torture children.Is it right to maliciously torture children in one instance, but wrong to maliciously torture them in another?
Is it only relatively true that the planets rotate about the Sun in our solar system, but in other solar systems the Suns rotate about planets?
Etc.
Clearly naturalistic facts are more strongly objective than normative facts.
I
inocente
Guest
Granny, you’re making me feel like Penny from this episode of The Big Bang Theory:
Penny (opening door): Oh, hey Sheldon, what’s going on?
Sheldon: I need your opinion on a matter of semiotics.
Penny: I’m sorry?
Sheldon: Semiotics. The study of signs and symbols, it’s a branch of philosophy related to linguistics.
Penny: Okay, sweetie, I know you think you’re explaining yourself, but you’re really not.
I
inocente
Guest
Could you guide me please granny, you lost me some days back.
G
grannymh
Guest
It seems to me that you guided me on some subjects in the distant past. Was it Spanish food?
Basically, I am using every tactic possible so that people can recognize the uniqueness of Objective Truth. Objective Truth is considered an universal Truth. Universal in the sense that this Truth existed before I was born and will exist after I die.
Currently, I see that the “Moral Principles Definition” is being applied to the “Objective Truth Definition.” Moral Principles can be expressed in ethics. Ethics can be relative to whatever standard of behavior is present. Problems can occur because by definition Objective Truth stands alone, that is, it cannot be altered by any ethics’ decision. This is like a child throwing mud pies at a brick wall. It is like a circle that some, not all, people prefer instead of actually searching out basic definition(s) for Objective Truth.
Usually, people can understand the difference between buying a car because its color blue is a favorite color that brings me good luck when I use it and buying a car because its price tag has a lower dollar amount than some other cars. These two different approaches to the car are both valid. It is up to the individual which approach or both approaches should be used in making a decision about buying the blue car.
When it comes to issues involving morality, problems occur because some people do not take the time to recognize the difference between a material object such as a car and an object whose nature is an unique unification of the material world (decomposing anatomy) and the spiritual world (expressed in the difference between a beaver dam and the Hoover Dam. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam )
Obviously, the atheist can express the concept of a spiritual world in the material differences in kind between the human species and animal species. Atheists can recognize, on their terms, that the human species is peerless and thus it is worthy of profound respect.
When it comes to issues involving human morality, our mind has to jump to a different level. This “jump” is new to me. The path through the maze which appears to me is not necessarily the most understandable. Therefore, would you give me the approximate point where we lost each other?
As I am learning other people’s thinking, I am beginning to think that the presented examples of immorality actually go far deeper than anyone has expressed. This is one of the reasons I suggest checking out Google for Moral Principles Definition.
The time when an atheist scientist had my head on a platter (before you joined CAF) turned out to be an amazing gift to me. Therefore, please let me know what information lost you. You are too cute to be lost.
Seriously, please give me some help, by examples, where I need to go for an easier understanding of objective truths.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
So what you are saying is that the malicious murder of a child is not objectively evil?
Can you give us just one circumstance of justification for maliciously murdering a child?
JUST ONE?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Sloppy reasoning here.
You left out “malicious”. Murder has to be defined as malicious in every occasion.
In a war situation, you kill not out of malice but for principle, or for self defense.
Killing out of malice might apply at Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima.
There are such things as war crimes, as when the Germans killed Jews out of malice.
Or are you going to argue the Holocaust was justifiable?
Or that some Holocausts are justifiable and others are not?
T
tonyrey
Guest
The fact that the church’s teaching is relative to contingencies doesn’t imply that it is determined** solely **by those contingencies. It is determined by absolute, objective principles like choosing the lesser evil and doing what we sincerely believe is right - which transcend all contingencies. Fundamental truths are objective, immutable, eternal and indestructible. A fact is always and everywhere a fact whether we like it or not nor does it depend on whether we know or recognise it. Nothing can ever change reality any more than history can be changed. Even if everything were in a state of flux the flux itself wouldn’t be in a state of flux. If it were it would lead to an infinite regress which is not a rational explanation. It is like going around in circles without ever coming to an end!
I should add that ethical subjectivity does exist because it is based on what we believe.
Sometimes it corresponds to objective moral values, sometimes it doesn’t and very often we don’t know when it does or when it doesn’t! That is not our fault given that we’re not infallible.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Atheists hate the Big Bang because it strongly suggests there is not an infinite regress, that time and space have a start 14 billion years ago. This is not common sense to an atheist, but rather a mystery that defies explanation without resorting to fantasies of an infinite flux of finite universes. So bring on the complex fantasies and by all means denigrate common sense to the hilt , especially the common sense that suggests a Creator of great power and intelligence.Even if everything were in a state of flux the flux itself wouldn’t be in a state of flux. If it were it would lead to an infinite regress which is not a rational explanation. It is like going around in circles without ever coming to an end!
But wait until long after Einstein’s common sense solution is dead to do it.
:“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” Albert Einstein
That there is order in the universe that can be reduced to mathematical equations is a common sense insight of mathematicians, and strongly suggests that some designing intelligence, a Supreme Mathematician, breathed fire into these equations. What is true of the material world is just as true of the moral world. Someone breathed fire into the equations that govern right and wrong. This fire is constant and objective, it does not change any more than the laws of nature change according to our whim. We can resist these laws with all our might, but we cannot alter them.
Moral Axiom #1: Do good and avoid evil. The iron law of our moral nature.
It was always, it is now, and it will always be wrong to maliciously torture and murder a child.
B
Bradski
Guest
Then there are no relative statements you can make about morality. You just keep qualifying a statement until you get universal agreement and then call it objective.
Tony disagrees.
So let’s see if Tony can give us a subjective statement about morality and using Charles’ method of qualifying it to the max, we’ll turn it into an objective one.
Ready when you are, Tony.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Of course there are relative aspects of morality.
When Jesus praised the donation of the widow’s mite over the larger donation of the Pharisee, he was saying that she was more virtuous, even though she gave less. That’s moral relativity.
But that’s hardly the same as saying that a child may or may not be maliciously tortured and murdered depending on the circumstances.
And I do have to say that your non-answer to the case I posed in reply to your dare to find just one instance strikes me as odd. You are generally more athletic.
I
inocente
Guest
OK. Not sure if this will help, but let me tell you a story. The story is about St Paul using the principle that the human person is worthy of profound respect, in Romans 14.It seems to me that you guided me on some subjects in the distant past. Was it Spanish food?
Basically, I am using every tactic possible so that people can recognize the uniqueness of Objective Truth. Objective Truth is considered an universal Truth. Universal in the sense that this Truth existed before I was born and will exist after I die.
Currently, I see that the “Moral Principles Definition” is being applied to the “Objective Truth Definition.” Moral Principles can be expressed in ethics. Ethics can be relative to whatever standard of behavior is present. Problems can occur because by definition Objective Truth stands alone, that is, it cannot be altered by any ethics’ decision. This is like a child throwing mud pies at a brick wall. It is like a circle that some, not all, people prefer instead of actually searching out basic definition(s) for Objective Truth.
Usually, people can understand the difference between buying a car because its color blue is a favorite color that brings me good luck when I use it and buying a car because its price tag has a lower dollar amount than some other cars. These two different approaches to the car are both valid. It is up to the individual which approach or both approaches should be used in making a decision about buying the blue car.
When it comes to issues involving morality, problems occur because some people do not take the time to recognize the difference between a material object such as a car and an object whose nature is an unique unification of the material world (decomposing anatomy) and the spiritual world (expressed in the difference between a beaver dam and the Hoover Dam. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam )
Obviously, the atheist can express the concept of a spiritual world in the material differences in kind between the human species and animal species. Atheists can recognize, on their terms, that the human species is peerless and thus it is worthy of profound respect.
When it comes to issues involving human morality, our mind has to jump to a different level. This “jump” is new to me. The path through the maze which appears to me is not necessarily the most understandable. Therefore, would you give me the approximate point where we lost each other?
As I am learning other people’s thinking, I am beginning to think that the presented examples of immorality actually go far deeper than anyone has expressed. This is one of the reasons I suggest checking out Google for Moral Principles Definition.
The time when an atheist scientist had my head on a platter (before you joined CAF) turned out to be an amazing gift to me. Therefore, please let me know what information lost you. You are too cute to be lost.
Seriously, please give me some help, by examples, where I need to go for an easier understanding of objective truths.
The chapter starts with “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.”
That’s puzzling, it’s not immediately clear what Paul means by weak faith and why that would stop someone eating meat. There are ex-Jews in the church, but one additional explanation I’ve heard, which may not be true but which certainly brings it to life, is this: Rome is still pagan, and some in the church live communally for mutual support and protection. They take turns at the tasks and chores. Many of them used to worship the Roman gods before they became Christians. When it’s the turn of those who have been Christians for a long time (“the strong”) to go to market, they buy meat that has been sacrificed to a pagan god. Not only is it cheap, having already served its main purpose, but they know those gods don’t exist, and using it helps them make a break with their past.
But when the newer Christians (“the weak”) learn of this they’re scandalized - they were worshiping those pagan gods only days or weeks before. They are revolted by the thought of swallowing such food. The strong now taunt the weak, the weak feel they’re being mocked. There’s a rumpus. Tempers are lost. Feelings are hurt.
Paul steps in and writes chapter 14 to be read out to them all. Now please read the chapter with this story in mind, and see how Paul uses the principle that the human person is worthy of profound respect, He says both sides are right with God so long as they act in faith, but neither side should try to force the other to act against what they believe, since “everything that does not come from faith is sin”.
The moral then is that we must never act against our conscience and must never try to make anyone else act against her conscience, since doing so would disregard the principle that the human person is worthy of profound respect.
Imho this implies that if we want to be true to that principle, then whatever objective truths we can state in ethics must necessarily authorize people to genuinely and sincerely disagree on moral imperatives.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for responding.
I will read the chapter when both my eyes are opened. :yawn: And when I am free to listen to St. Paul.
Could you find one of my favorite passages which talks about “putting on Christ” – that does not sound right so early in the day. Is what I am looking for is when a person becomes a new person in Christ? From what you posted, I can see a relationship to the person as a person. However, with only one sleepy eye, I think I can see some questioning about moral imperatives.
G
grannymh
Guest
One definition I found – A Moral Imperative is a matter of what’s inside the person’s mind that will compel them on how to act. It’s an act of their reason, and why they choose to do so.
When you used the term Moral Imperatives, are you referring to Immanuel Kant?
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_imperative
A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person’s mind that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason. Later thinkers took the imperative to originate in conscience, as the divine voice speaking through the human spirit. The dictates of conscience are simply right and often resist further justification. Looked at another way, the experience of conscience is the basic experience of encountering the right.
An example of not following a moral imperative is making a promise that you do not intend to keep in order to get something.[1]
From csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm
Basic Summary: Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act: (i) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (Kant believed that these questions were equivalent).
Kant’s theory is an example of a deontological moral theory–according to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.
Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred to it as The Categorical Imperative. The CI determines what our moral duties are.
Certainly, the above is not a sufficient description of Kant’s work. Nonetheless, it gives this granny wordsmith (in younger days) a clue to the mess on this thread.
The only thing I remember about my philosophy course is that the professor greeted us with this statement. “This course will demonstrate that Cartesian philosophy led to Communism.” That had to be his dissertation because the progression of philosophers he gave as examples did pave the way to Communism. Perhaps, I need to dig into my memory bank and look for this professor’s “methods and materials” which are basic in scientific research.
Sorry that I got sidetracked. I will read St. Paul. When I skimmed it earlier, I was getting a different idea. I really need to take it apart.
.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Well, here’s the rub once again.
Paul says the people are not to believe other than what they are taught, and in another place urges not that we “genuinely and sincerely disagree on moral imperatives”, but rather that we are one with each other and one with Christ. You can’t have that if everybody is disagreeing with the excuse that conscience is one’s guide, and all the more so because we never know when our “conscience” is lying to us with a pretense of genuine sincerity.
Any psychiatrist will be glad to assure you, after a few years of personal experience with his patients, that people are clever and adept at persuading themselves to avoid the very truths about themselves they ought to confront. It is the psychiatrist’s job to uncover those lies and expose them to the light of truth.
If conscience is genuine, it will lead to the truth. But when conscience disagrees with the teachings of Christ (protected by and spread about by the Church he founded to do so) conscience loses is genuinely sincere virtue and becomes a purveyor of perdition.
When Luther said “Here I stand” and dug his heels in and said he could not do anything else but rebel, he demonstrated how inferior a theologian he was to Thomas Aquinas, who said on his deathbed:
"Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee. If anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous … I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”
G
grannymh
Guest
This is what I learned from Paul.
The human person is worthy of profound respect because of Romans 14: 9
usccb.org/bible/romans/14
Verse 9 “For this is why Christ died and came to life, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.”
Can anyone deny Paul’s teaching that Christ died and came to life for human persons dead and living? That is one of the many objective reasons, or evidence, that the human person is worthy of profound respect.
The perspective --"…then whatever objective truths we can state in ethics must necessarily authorize people to genuinely and sincerely disagree on moral imperatives." sidesteps the basic fundamental truth which is not found in ethics per se. The basic fundamental truth is that Christ considers the human person as worthy of salvation to the point that Christ hung bloody on His cross. Following that truth, we can go to Christ’s teachings about ethics.
An ethical principle taught by Jesus Christ is found in
Matthew 22: 34-40
Mark 12: 28-34
Luke 10: 25-28
John 13: 34-35
John 15: 12
T
tonyrey
Guest
A wonderful example of humility. Intellectual pride is at the root of revolt against the Church founded by Christ. Why should an individual become an authority on the meaning of scriptures selected by that Church for their authenticity?
- Status