Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[grannymh]

My closing thought tonight is that I do not recall anyone on CAF enthusiastically agreeing that “The human person is worthy of profound respect” Yes, many applaud human persons for this or that. Yet, there is never a complete agreement that all human persons are worthy of profound respect. How sad!

On the other hand, an objective truth does not need everyone’s or anyone’s agreement. The human person is worthy of profound respect is a wonderful glorious objective truth which stands apart from all the mess on this thread.

My closing thought is a wish that someday, other persons will find the beauty of the human person and consequently will profoundly respect all persons, regardless. However, from my experience, I do not think that at this point, there will be agreement. And since this thread is about to turn the page …

 

[inocente]

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.”

That would be OK except that the theme of the story was that we take granny’s maxim as our first principle: The human person is worthy of profound respect.

CII: You are worthy of profound respect inocente.
inocente: Well thank you kindly Charles.
CII: Oh, and it is objectively true that to be moral you must always do X.
inocente: But I disagree, I think it is never moral to do X.
CII: Doesn’t matter what you think, to be moral you must always do X.
inocente: But you just said I was worthy of profound respect.
CII: Only as long as you do what I tell you to do.

See, it doesn’t work. Now you could ask granny is she will accept an additional clause to the first principle, making it read The human person is worthy of profound respect unless [whatever list you and granny agree on].

But then it’s no longer a principle, since it says the human person has to be worthy in order to be worthy of respect. It says I have to give up all respect for myself and follow your orders to earn your respect. And we already know that “I was only following orders” is not a defense before a court of law or before the throne of Christ.

 

[inocente]

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.
​

Yes, what a person thinks is right.

There are basically two ways to evaluate a moral action. One is to look at the consequences. The most famous consequentialist system of ethics is Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism. No action is right or wrong in itself, anything is allowed as long as it produces the greater good. From previous threads, most posters seem to start with this way of thinking.

But Kant believed that some actions are always categorically wrong in themselves, even if they produce a greater good, and most people will also never do certain things.

In the story, the “strong” are consequentialists, whereas the “weak” think it’s categorically wrong to eat the meat.

Post #55 gives an example of how people flip a little inconsistently between these two types of morality.

If we take the human person is worthy of profound respect as a principle then I think we have to allow people to genuinely and sincerely disagree on moral imperatives.​

 

[inocente]

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

No, that basic truth is found in Christian ethics - Love each other as I have loved you. The issue is how that is played out.

Suppose a hundred people have a disease and will surely die unless they are injected with some cells. The only possible donor is a three-month old baby, who will surely die if the cells are extracted.

What do you do out of love? Do you look at the consequences, and extract the cells, killing the baby for the greater good? Or do you not extract the cells on the basis that it is categorically wrong to kill the baby? Which is the greater love? And if you decide one way and I decide another, who am I to tell you you’re wrong?

 

[inocente]

My closing thought tonight is that I do not recall anyone on CAF enthusiastically agreeing that “The human person is worthy of profound respect” Yes, many applaud human persons for this or that. Yet, there is never a complete agreement that all human persons are worthy of profound respect. How sad!

On the other hand, an objective truth does not need everyone’s or anyone’s agreement. The human person is worthy of profound respect is a wonderful glorious objective truth which stands apart from all the mess on this thread.

My closing thought is a wish that someday, other persons will find the beauty of the human person and consequently will profoundly respect all persons, regardless. However, from my experience, I do not think that at this point, there will be agreement. And since this thread is about to turn the page …

The problem is that particular principle cannot work if it rides rough-shot over the person.

In passing, imho by itself it’s not a sufficient principle for a system of ethics, since it says nothing about our responsibilities to non-human animals and the planet, and may be too individualist for some, since by itself it doesn’t give society a voice.

 

[grannymh]

No, that basic truth is found in Christian ethics - Love each other as I have loved you. The issue is how that is played out.

“Love each other as I have loved you” is an ethical practice in real life. However, real life appears to be ignored on this thread. That is why some, hopefully not all, Catholics will not openly agree with the truth (not a principle of truth or ethics or moral or whatever is the flavor of the day) but the really real objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Suppose a hundred people have a disease and will surely die unless they are injected with some cells. The only possible donor is a three-month old baby, who will surely die if the cells are extracted.

What do you do out of love?

Obviously, this example omits objective truth. Because the above example omits the objective human nature truth, the answer to your question depends on the weather and how it is perceived by the 100 persons in the example.

Seriously, the objective truth is there to be consulted. Maybe this thread’s mess is due to the unfamiliarity of the word consulted.

Because of intellective freedom of choice, humans can determine individual actions which contradict each other. These actions are not in themselves objective truth about human nature.

The example of objective human nature truth you gave in post 120 is a great start.

“CII: You are worthy of profound respect inocente.
inocente: Well thank you kindly Charles.”

Then you slip back into the confusion which dominates the thinking on this thread. You equate, conflate, an objective truth with principles which are not part of objective human nature truth per se. Principles are applications which guide actions of humans.

Consider that if those 100 sick people did not accept the basic human nature truth that the human person is worth of profound respect – then there is no point to the question “What do you do out of love?” The group can go straight to a process like drawing straws or flipping a coin. Or immediately take the cells from the baby.

 

[grannymh]

Well of course, always act on your own conscience, no matter how much peer pressure is heaped on you.

But it’s more interesting than that, because we change our mind depending on circumstance. as shown by the trolley car dilemma.

In one version, a trolley car is heading towards five workers who will surely be killed unless we pull a lever to switch the car to another track where only one will get killed. Most people, regardless of their religion or culture, will pull the lever on the principle it’s better for one to die than five.

But in another version, the trolley car is again heading towards five workers who will surely be killed, unless we push a fat man off a bridge to stop the car. Most people will not push the fat man and so will let the five die, completely abandoning their previous principle that it’s better for one to die than five.

If you watch the first six minutes of this famous Harvard lecture, you’ll see the students’ astonishment with their own lack of consistency. - youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

I started watching the video and liked the way the first trolley situations were being presented. I stopped when I realized that none of the people on the trolley or on the bridge were worthy of profound respect. So what is the point when human nature itself is unworthy of profound respect?

Then the real issue is how to save the trolley.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But then it’s no longer a principle, since it says the human person has to be worthy in order to be worthy of respect. It says I have to give up all respect for myself and follow your orders to earn your respect. And we already know that “I was only following orders” is not a defense before a court of law or before the throne of Christ.

This truly is the essence of Protestantism, that it gives each person the right to call all the shots about morality, and if that means a hundred million different versions of Christian morality, so be it.

Whereas Christ and St. Paul preached unity, Protestantism preaches discord and rebellion, and apparently the more the better.

United we stand, divided we fall. Protestantism has divided us mercilessly, and so we are living in the post-Christian era because all the signs point to the triumph of secularism over faith, a triumph achieved before the throne of Satan in this world.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If we take the human person is worthy of profound respect as a principle then I think we have to allow people to genuinely and sincerely disagree on moral imperatives.

No, you don’t have to allow that “genuine and sincere” disagreement any more than you have to allow Muslim terrorists to destroy the fabric of American civilization.

People who think like the Muslim terrorists should not be allowed into America, unless you think American civilization should be destroyed and supplanted by Islam.

 

[inocente]

“Love each other as I have loved you” is an ethical practice in real life. However, real life appears to be ignored on this thread. That is why some, hopefully not all, Catholics will not openly agree with the truth (not a principle of truth or ethics or moral or whatever is the flavor of the day) but the really real objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Obviously, this example omits objective truth. Because the above example omits the objective human nature truth, the answer to your question depends on the weather and how it is perceived by the 100 persons in the example.

Seriously, the objective truth is there to be consulted. Maybe this thread’s mess is due to the unfamiliarity of the word consulted.

Because of intellective freedom of choice, humans can determine individual actions which contradict each other. These actions are not in themselves objective truth about human nature.

The example of objective human nature truth you gave in post 120 is a great start.

Then you slip back into the confusion which dominates the thinking on this thread. You equate, conflate, an objective truth with principles which are not part of objective human nature truth per se. Principles are applications which guide actions of humans.

Consider that if those 100 sick people did not accept the basic human nature truth that the human person is worth of profound respect – then there is no point to the question “What do you do out of love?” The group can go straight to a process like drawing straws or flipping a coin. Or immediately take the cells from the baby.

I started watching the video and liked the way the first trolley situations were being presented. I stopped when I realized that none of the people on the trolley or on the bridge were worthy of profound respect. So what is the point when human nature itself is unworthy of profound respect?

Then the real issue is how to save the trolley.

*"UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

…]ARTICLE ONE: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." - un.org/Overview/rights.html*

Freedom of conscience is not just a secular right, it is a founding principle of the Baptist faith. If you dismiss it as a confusion and a mess, then you disrespect me and my religion, along btw with the whole of ethics.

I’ll not be around tomorrow. Please take time to consider where you are going with this. Do you believe that only those persons who see things your way are worthy of profound respect, or that all persons are worthy of profound respect?

 

[grannymh]

SIDEBAR

Plenty of Protestants understand the meaning of the objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect. Many are in harm’s way. I am old enough to remember the small flag with a star in the middle which hung in neighborhood windows. My sincere gratitude to all persons who take that objective truth literally.

 

[inocente]

This truly is the essence of Protestantism, that it gives each person the right to call all the shots about morality, and if that means a hundred million different versions of Christian morality, so be it.

Whereas Christ and St. Paul preached unity, Protestantism preaches discord and rebellion, and apparently the more the better.

United we stand, divided we fall. Protestantism has divided us mercilessly, and so we are living in the post-Christian era because all the signs point to the triumph of secularism over faith, a triumph achieved before the throne of Satan in this world.

No, you don’t have to allow that “genuine and sincere” disagreement any more than you have to allow Muslim terrorists to destroy the fabric of American civilization.

People who think like the Muslim terrorists should not be allowed into America, unless you think American civilization should be destroyed and supplanted by Islam.

I didn’t realize I was preaching discord and destroying the fabric of American civilization. I did not realize that Muslims are terrorists and that Protestants preach rebellion.

It must be very frightening for you to be surrounded by so many bad people. Do you take an assault weapon to Mass in case a Methodist jumps out from behind a pew?

Do you seriously think everyone is evil, are you seriously so scared?

youtube.com/watch?v=zQohhruSHVY

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Freedom of conscience is not just a secular right, it is a founding principle of the Baptist faith. If you dismiss it as a confusion and a mess, then you disrespect me and my religion, along btw with the whole of ethics.

A founding principle of the Baptist faith? Is it not a principle of **all ** Christian faiths?

But you have said in other threads that you have no creed, and are free to believe what you like.

That kind of freedom has nothing to do with conscience.

Answer me this:

Do you believe that conscience takes precedence over the teachings of Christ?

Are you free to “genuinely and sincerely” disagree with Christ?

Would this not be the rejection of objective Truth and the ultimate absurdity of relativism?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do you seriously think everyone is evil, are you seriously so scared?

Are you seriously pretending to be philosophical?

 

[grannymh]

I didn’t realize I was preaching discord and destroying the fabric of American civilization. I did not realize that Muslims are terrorists and that Protestants preach rebellion.

It must be very frightening for you to be surrounded by so many bad people. Do you take an assault weapon to Mass in case a Methodist jumps out from behind a pew?

Do you seriously think everyone is evil, are you seriously so scared?

youtube.com/watch?v=zQohhruSHVY

This is why I quickly posted the brief post 129.

Send that Methodist to me. Many years ago, when I was ministering to the sick in the hospital, I promised myself to give the “story” of a Methodist patient to every Methodist pastor I met. I kept that promise on CAF.

I am getting ready with an answer to your post directed to me. I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

 

[grannymh]

"UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

*Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, *

…]ARTICLE ONE: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." - un.org/Overview/rights.html

Freedom of conscience is not just a secular right, it is a founding principle of the Baptist faith. If you dismiss it as a confusion and a mess, then you disrespect me and my religion, along btw with the whole of ethics.

I’ll not be around tomorrow. Please take time to consider where you are going with this. Do you believe that only those persons who see things your way are worthy of profound respect, or that all persons are worthy of profound respect?

I will never dismiss freedom of conscience because it is obvious that a conscience is inherent in human nature which is another reason that I repeatedly say –
The human person is worthy of profound respect.

I may have missed your posts which would ground the very freedom of conscience in an objective truth about human nature. Please accept my apology. Nonetheless, the reality of freedom of conscience is clearly based on an objective truth, which I wish someone would acknowledge, as being an universal objective truth according to what an universal objective truth requires

As I recall, there is a lot of this and that which obscure the source of freedom of conscience. That is what I would call a mess.

I have never indicated that I believe that only persons who see things my way, whatever that means, are worthy of profound respect. That is why the objective truth of human nature is a simple statement regarding the human person. If one is a human person, then that human person is worthy of profound respect. The back and forth over how one determines this or that without resorting to the basics of an objective truth is what I call a mess.

The mess of relative this to that is due to that or this post which is not considering the fundamental truth which humans can refer to when writing any constitution for any nation. Or what humans can consult when difficult decisions have to be made.

Speaking of a “founding principle” in the Baptist faith, what is the rock that this principle is based on? . In the beginning of the trolley discussion, post 55, a member of the audience brought up genocide. Why would genocide be considered?

Why do some, hopefully not all, persons appear to ignore the concept that the human person is worthy of profound respect? That makes it extremely difficult to find conclusions which meet one of the major requirements for an universal truth which is that it exists before one is born and continues to exist after one dies.

Obviously, a person could present the example of a red car which was manufactured before one is born and is so well made that it will exist after one eventually dies. That example works. But, is the human person really the same as a red car? Maybe for some folks it is??? In that case, we can still respect the person as worthy of our profound respect even when the eyesight is not the greatest.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, I guess even Hitler was worthy of profound respect … when he was a baby.

As to later, I have some doubts.

Those in hell certainly are not worthy of profound respect.

So I think there may well be a sliding scale of profound respect for living human beings.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, I guess even Hitler was worthy of profound respect … when he was a baby.

As to later, I have some doubts.

Those in hell certainly are not worthy of profound respect.

So I think there may well be a sliding scale of profound respect for living human beings.

I think, Charlie, that we have to distinguish between the intrinsic value of being a person and the effect of our choices and decisions on ourselves. In the words of John Keats this world is “a vale of soul-making”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think, Charlie, that we have to distinguish between the intrinsic value of being a person and the effect of our choices and decisions on ourselves. In the words of John Keats this world is “a vale of soul-making”.

Yes, being human has intrinsic value and worth. All humans, even those in the womb, are worthy of profound respect because they are children of God. Assuming all things to be equal, we cannot distinguish our care and concern for one human against another, so that atheists and Catholics ought treat each other with equal care and concern. We ought always to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, unless they will not let us treat them that way. We can lead others to the water that gives everlasting life, but we cannot force them to drink. It seems so deeply tragic that so many people seem so hell bound and nothing in the world can seem to stop them from arriving at their ultimate chosen destination.

Even Keats on his deathbed seems not to have made his soul.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Sorry, Brad, for some reason I didn’t notice this post. I don’t believe objectivity depends on universal agreement because everyone could be mistaken! Surely our belief in the distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust are all absolute and unexceptional. If those distinctions don’t correspond to the facts morality is an illusion. Relativism is false because it is self-destructive. If relativism were true it would also be relative but what would it be relative to? Only something else that is relative - which would be relative to something else that is relative which would be relative to something else that is relative… ad infinitum. An infinite regress undermines the basis of all knowledge and leads to total scepticism which is self-refuting. How does the sceptic know scepticism is credible? He doesn’t! He is just playing with words…