Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[PRmerger]

I don’t see why you are confused. We ought to follow our conscience, but our conscience must be informed by the teachings of Christ which we receive through his Church.

Indeed.

And the ONLY way we can know what Christ taught is because we defer to the authority of His Body, the Catholic Church to tell us this.

Thus, we know that this is NOT theopneustos: “To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness, there is to be added a great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many indignities and tortures, furnished us with a most excellent example. Through envy, those women, the Danaids and Dircae, being persecuted, after they had suffered terrible and unspeakable torments, finished the course of their faith with steadfastness, and though weak in body, received a noble reward. Envy has alienated wives from their husbands, and changed that saying of our father Adam, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” Envy and strife have overthrown great cities and rooted up mighty nations.”–Epistle of Clement

How does any Protestant know that this is not theopneustos?

Because the CC told him so.

The canon of objective truth here is this and only this: the Catholic Church as arbiter of this truth.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed.

And the ONLY way we can know what Christ taught is because we defer to the authority of His Body, the Catholic Church to tell us this.

Thus, we know that this is NOT theopneustos: “To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness, there is to be added a great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many indignities and tortures, furnished us with a most excellent example. Through envy, those women, the Danaids and Dircae, being persecuted, after they had suffered terrible and unspeakable torments, finished the course of their faith with steadfastness, and though weak in body, received a noble reward. Envy has alienated wives from their husbands, and changed that saying of our father Adam, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” Envy and strife have overthrown great cities and rooted up mighty nations.”–Epistle of Clement

How does any Protestant know that this is not theopneustos?

Because the CC told him so.

The canon of objective truth here is this and only this: the Catholic Church as arbiter of this truth.

Now, there are quite a few folks these days who want to bow to the dictatorship of relativism and declare that they can know, of their own accord, what’s theopneustos, and some have even declared the Epistles of Paul to be NOT the inspired Word of God.

voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

And in this absurd world of relativism, no Protestant can tell them that they are wrong.

For, after all, these anti-Pauline folks are only doing what these Protestants are doing–declaring for themselves the right to discern, independent of the objective truth, what is theopneustos.

 

[grannymh]

And the ONLY way we can know what Christ taught is because we defer to the authority of His Body, the Catholic Church to tell us this.

In my neighborhood, there is a store which sells Bibles. Therefore, the public can know what Christ taught. By the way, Bible means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

 

[PRmerger]

In my neighborhood, there is a store which sells Bibles. Therefore, the public can know what Christ taught.

Sure. But unless the Bible floated down, intact, (and in King James version ) from heaven, someone had to decide which books belong in there, and which ones don’t.

And that someone is…

the Catholic Church.

Someone discerned for you and me that the Epistle of Barnabas isn’t theopneustos, but that the Epistle to the Hebrews is.

There’s no other way to know this, except through the authority of the CC.

Unless, of course, one is a relativist and decides that he gets to throw out books of the Bible and add books of the Bible.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t see why you are confused. We ought to follow our conscience, but our conscience must be informed by the teachings of Christ which we receive through his Church.

As I study a bit of history, real human persons were alive before the visible Catholic Church was formed on planet earth. Seems to me, that God Himself, in those days, informed the conscience. Apparently, each person has in his heart, a law inscribed by God.

 

[inocente]

Regarding my realization that this thread does not recognize the truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

I had taken it on faith, without even looking, that the Church is openly committed to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and respect for every person. I took it on faith since it’s obvious to everyone who is born again in Christ, whichever building they walk into on a Sunday. But I had a little time today so here are a few of the references found by a quick google:

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” - CCC 1782

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. The council further declares that he right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself - Dignitatis Humanae

In order that this freedom, willed by God and inscribed in human nature, may be exercised, no obstacle should be placed in its way, since “the truth cannot be imposed except by virtue of its own truth”. The dignity of the person and the very nature of the quest for God require that all men and women should be free from every constraint in the area of religion. - Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

The very fact that we share a common human dignity provides the indispensable base that sustains the inter-relatedness and indivisibility of human rights, social, civil and political, cultural and economic. - vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2007/documents/rc_seg-st_20071210_udhr_en.html

It is noted with satisfaction that during the last decades the international community has shown interest in the safeguarding of human rights and fundamental liberties and has carefully concerned itself with respect for freedom of conscience and of religion in well-known documents such as: the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights of December 10, 1948 (article 18) - John Paul II, 1980

• UDHR article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. ]*

I think we can safely conclude, on the basis of that evidence, that some people don’t know their own religion .

*I do have two questions about this specific Parable of the Good Samaritan.

1. In this Parable, did Jesus know that the priest and Levite are real human beings?
2. Does this Parable demonstrate that Jesus excluded the priest and Levite from His love?*

Well, it’s a parable, so Jesus made it up along with the characters. One explanation for why He has the priest and Levite pass by on the other side, is that their main concern is being defiled by touching the man, in contravention of cleanliness laws. Imho Jesus still loves them of course, though their behavior saddens Him.

Matthew 10: 14

Indeed.

By the by, Jesus doesn’t like legalists. They believe that as long as someone follows their religion, their worship and their rules, then Grace is irrelevant, along with conscience, love and mercy. To them, salvation has nothing to do with what is within, it is all about outward appearances: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean [Matt. 23]". The angrier we are with legalists, the closer we are to Christ .

 

[inocente]

I do have two questions about this specific Parable of the Good Samaritan.

1. In this Parable, did Jesus know that the priest and Levite are real human beings?
2. Does this Parable demonstrate that Jesus excluded the priest and Levite from His love?

Footnote. The parable is worth much study, Jesus puts so many lessons into the one short story. Martin Luther King, for instance, said of it “One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”

The Samaritan is from a group despised by Jesus’ audience, and to get its full meaning we need to update Samaritan to whichever group we ourselves might despise. In this way we learn not to judge anyone by whichever labels we stick to them. And of course, without freedom of conscience, no moral reforms could ever take place. Reminded me of the poem about dignity and freedom read at the inauguration of the first black president of America:

*Praise Song for the Day

Each day we go about our business,
walking past each other, catching each other’s
eyes or not, about to speak or speaking.

All about us is noise. All about us is
noise and bramble, thorn and din, each
one of our ancestors on our tongues.

Someone is stitching up a hem, darning
a hole in a uniform, patching a tire,
repairing the things in need of repair.

Someone is trying to make music somewhere,
with a pair of wooden spoons on an oil drum,
with cello, boom box, harmonica, voice.

A woman and her son wait for the bus.
A farmer considers the changing sky.
A teacher says, Take out your pencils. Begin.

We encounter each other in words, words
spiny or smooth, whispered or declaimed,
words to consider, reconsider.

We cross dirt roads and highways that mark
the will of some one and then others, who said
I need to see what’s on the other side.

I know there’s something better down the road.
We need to find a place where we are safe.
We walk into that which we cannot yet see.

Say it plain: that many have died for this day.
Sing the names of the dead who brought us here,
who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges,

picked the cotton and the lettuce, built
brick by brick the glittering edifices
they would then keep clean and work inside of.

Praise song for struggle, praise song for the day.
Praise song for every hand-lettered sign,
the figuring-it-out at kitchen tables.

Some live by love thy neighbor as thyself,
others by first do no harm or take no more
than you need. What if the mightiest word is love?

Love beyond marital, filial, national,
love that casts a widening pool of light,
love with no need to pre-empt grievance.

In today’s sharp sparkle, this winter air,
any thing can be made, any sentence begun.
On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp,

praise song for walking forward in that light.

by Elizabeth Alexander*

 

[grannymh]

Praise Song for the Day

Each day we go about our business,
walking past each other, catching each other’s
eyes or not, about to speak or speaking.

All about us is noise. All about us is
noise and bramble, thorn and din, each
one of our ancestors on our tongues.

Someone is stitching up a hem, darning
a hole in a uniform, patching a tire,
repairing the things in need of repair.

Someone is trying to make music somewhere,
with a pair of wooden spoons on an oil drum,
with cello, boom box, harmonica, voice.

A woman and her son wait for the bus.
A farmer considers the changing sky.
A teacher says, Take out your pencils. Begin.

We encounter each other in words, words
spiny or smooth, whispered or declaimed,
words to consider, reconsider.

We cross dirt roads and highways that mark
the will of some one and then others, who said
I need to see what’s on the other side.

I know there’s something better down the road.
We need to find a place where we are safe.
We walk into that which we cannot yet see.

Say it plain: that many have died for this day.
Sing the names of the dead who brought us here,
who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges,

picked the cotton and the lettuce, built
brick by brick the glittering edifices
they would then keep clean and work inside of.

Praise song for struggle, praise song for the day.
Praise song for every hand-lettered sign,
the figuring-it-out at kitchen tables.

Some live by love thy neighbor as thyself,
others by first do no harm or take no more
than you need. What if the mightiest word is love?

Love beyond marital, filial, national,
love that casts a widening pool of light,
love with no need to pre-empt grievance.

In today’s sharp sparkle, this winter air,
any thing can be made, any sentence begun.
On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp,

praise song for walking forward in that light.

by Elizabeth Alexander

Thank you.

I confess that I am one of those who need to see what’s on the other side. Like my Dad, I know it is important to understand other faiths and then return to our home of Catholicism. Jesus hung bloody on His cross for all. That is why our neighbor, the Samaritan, whom we are to love as thyself, is worthy of our profound respect. Being worthy dose not automatically guarantee sainthood. Being worthy means that forgiveness for the worst sin is offered when the sinner seeks it. The black sheep is worthy in the mind and heart of the Good Shepard.

 

[Bill_Martin]

The first problem with moral relativism is that nobody believes in it. We get angry about real or perceived injustices, demand changes, criticize, and praise. Moral relativism gets dusted off for use in an argument so that the so-called “relativist” doesn’t need to admit anything uncomfortable, then gets stashed back on the shelf until it’s needed again. Later that night, that same person will watch the news and become genuinely angry at ISIS, or North Korea, or [insert bad person here]. At no point does he think “Well, I personally wouldn’t behead apostates and rape women, but if that’s what ISIS’s moral code calls for, then who am I to judge them?”

Second, moral relativism is the most close-minded ideology that has ever been constructed. The ironic thing is that religious people are stereotyped as close-minded, but the one who accepts that there is objective moral truth is implicitly open to the possibility of not having it. The one who truly embraces relativism–not just for argument’s sake, but actually lives according to it–is closed to the possibility of being wrong. There is never a reason to change one’s moral beliefs or behavior, because all beliefs and behavior are equally permissable. Any change is decided by pleasure or convenience, thus trapping the true relativist in the prison of his own mind.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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?

What you have simply done is use reasoning to define the definition of murder, which is objectively wrong. We can think of situations where killing might be accepted. For instance, in self defense. But, we would never define self defense as murder. Murder is always wrong because it is the unjustified killing of an innocent human life. Capital punishment is a justified killing of a guilty human life. And, would not be considered murder. Now, war can be justified or unjustified depending on the moral reasons for it. For instance war for the sake of conquering others would be unjustified. But, war to save another from an immoral aggressor could be considered justified. So there are different conditions that determine whether something is justified or not. However, we would never be justified to say that those conditions can change or are relative. For instance, we would not be justified to say that it is now ok to kill innocent persons for sport. That is simply not relative. It is objective. While, yes, there are different conditions that can change the morality of killing. What doesn’t change and is not relative is the morality of those different conditions themselves. In other words murder is always wrong, even if killing isn’t always wrong. Because once we have defined what murder is, as the unjustified killing of an innocent human person, there can be no condition where murder can be justified.

Now, can you think of a situation where adultery is morally justified? I can’t. There is no such thing as adultery in self defense. And sex against one’s will is not adultery but rape.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The fact is that we recognize certain things under certain conditions as objectively wrong. If we couldn’t then how could we ever say that for instance the holocaust was objectively wrong? We can tell when something like that is wrong because it simply is. There is no condition that can justify it.

 

[fisherman_carl]

When we talk about relativity and morality we are not objecting to the idea that morality of something can be relative to certain conditions,like for instance the conditions of whether killing can be justified or not. Or the conditions that can justify war. We acknowledge those conditions. But rather whether the morality of the same action under the same conditions is the same for each person. This is what I think is the issue. In other words is murder wrong for you, but ok for someone else? Should morality be determined by each person or is it something external to us and for our well being? And should be objectively the same for all people. And thus enforced in laws.

 

[PRmerger]

The first problem with moral relativism is that nobody believes in it.

Well, nobody who holds any views with any confident assurance is a moral relativist.

What’s that saying by Chesterton? Something like: tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As I study a bit of history, real human persons were alive before the visible Catholic Church was formed on planet earth. Seems to me, that God Himself, in those days, informed the conscience. Apparently, each person has in his heart, a law inscribed by God.

This is certainly true. But Adam and Eve, not to mention Caine, refused to obey their conscience which had been formed in them by the teachings of their Lord. So it’s one thing to have a conscience, and quite another to disobey one’s conscience on the pretext that one is fully following one’s conscience.

After all, you surely believe that people lie to themselves about what is right and wrong.

They do it all the time, fully knowing what they were taught and disobeying anyway.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Someone discerned for you and me that the Epistle of Barnabas isn’t theopneustos, but that the Epistle to the Hebrews is.

There’s no other way to know this, except through the authority of the CC.

Unless, of course, one is a relativist and decides that he gets to throw out books of the Bible and add books of the Bible.

Or take seriously some parts of the New Testament and pretend other parts aren’t even there.

 

[PJM]

I don’t know “Anarchy in the UK” but of course I do know “Anything goes”. The words are certainly relevant to the topic:

“The world has gone mad today
And good’s bad today,
And black’s white today,
And day’s night today…”

In other words relativism makes everything topsyturvy because there is no point at which you can draw the line. How do you measure it? It’s impossible because it’s an arbitrary decision. Either is everything topsyturvy or nothing is. It’s similar to the slippery slope from absolutism to nihilism: either everything is good or nothing is good. The difference is that for theists everything is good in its proper context whereas there is no context for relativity - and for atheists nothing is good because there is no context for goodness (except in human minds).

For theists there are degrees of goodness depending on the subject but there are no degrees of relativity. Why not? Because are no extremes! Something is either extremely relative or hardly relative but it cannot be competely relative or not relative at all. That would dispense with relativity altogether. QED

I may be mistaken but I’m interested to know why!

It might be interesting to discuss on this STRING, just WHY or {How} this condition so readily exist

This pronominal happening can only be understood in light of God-Grace- & Freewill.

As 1st Timothy 2: 4-5 attest:
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Complicating [if that is the correct term here?] this desires fulfillment is man’s Intellect, Mind and Freewill, which are permanent components of man;s Soul. What we might think of as our other-self.

God certainly has done His part to fulfill this desire of His. From the Incarnation, to His Ministry, to His Death and Resurrection and the gifts of

His Church

His Commandments

& His Mother to u {John 19:25-28} & the Saints to be guides, models & Intercessors for us

Within in this trinity of Godly aids is the Divine Presence of the Holy Spirit who “Gifts” are the determining factor in anyone’s ability to actually comprehend and understand any or all Faith matters.

The “7 GIFTS” of the Holy Spirit are
Understanding
Counsel
Courage
Knowledge
Piety
Fear of the Lord {Awe 7 Wonder}
& Wisdom

Each is distributed at first as an OFFER of assistance from God

Then as we prove receptive to these Gifts/ Graces; they are granted in varying amounts and to varying degrees. It is NOT essential nor is is it “common” for everyone who SEEKS these gifts, to be granted all of them; or necessarily in “full-measure.”

SEE 1st Cor. 12: 26-30 & all of the short Chapter 13.

Because right understanding is impossible without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, we can know that WRONG, incorrect and partial understanding is traceable back to that same source: God Himself.

The multiplicity of understandings then with in and as a result of this shortfall in the existence of non-Catholic-Christian communities ought to be telling.

TRUTH as Pope Benedict XVI articulated so precisely:
“There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be no truth” is sufficient of this position.

God Bless you,
Patrick

:

 

[tonyrey]

It might be interesting to discuss on this STRING, just WHY or {How} this condition so readily exist

This pronominal happening can only be understood in light of God-Grace- & Freewill.

As 1st Timothy 2: 4-5 attest:
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Complicating [if that is the correct term here?] this desires fulfillment is man’s Intellect, Mind and Freewill, which are permanent components of man;s Soul. What we might think of as our other-self.

God certainly has done His part to fulfill this desire of His. From the Incarnation, to His Ministry, to His Death and Resurrection and the gifts of

His Church

His Commandments

& His Mother to u {John 19:25-28} & the Saints to be guides, models & Intercessors for us

Within in this trinity of Godly aids is the Divine Presence of the Holy Spirit who “Gifts” are the determining factor in anyone’s ability to actually comprehend and understand any or all Faith matters.

The “7 GIFTS” of the Holy Spirit are
Understanding
Counsel
Courage
Knowledge
Piety
Fear of the Lord {Awe 7 Wonder}
& Wisdom

Each is distributed at first as an OFFER of assistance from God

Then as we prove receptive to these Gifts/ Graces; they are granted in varying amounts and to varying degrees. It is NOT essential nor is is it “common” for everyone who SEEKS these gifts, to be granted all of them; or necessarily in “full-measure.”

SEE 1st Cor. 12: 26-30 & all of the short Chapter 13.

Because right understanding is impossible without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, we can know that WRONG, incorrect and partial understanding is traceable back to that same source: God Himself.

The multiplicity of understandings then with in and as a result of this shortfall in the existence of non-Catholic-Christian communities ought to be telling.

TRUTH as Pope Benedict XVI articulated so precisely:
“There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be no truth” is sufficient of this position.

God Bless you,
Patrick

Thank you, Patrick. I always come back to the view that a secular society is a spiritual desert. Yet there is hope because even Richard Dawkins admitted that Jesus was ahead of his time. From a man who regards religious education as child abuse that is quite a concession! It implies that Christian precepts are not relative to time or place but enduring truths about personal relationships and social harmony.

God bless you.
Tony

 

[grannymh]

It might be interesting to discuss on this STRING, just WHY or {How} this condition so readily exist

I am interested in this discussion because I am interested in the “objective truth” of human nature per se which every human being has.

This pronominal happening can only be understood in light of God-Grace- & Freewill.

God-Grace & Freewill is a good objective description of human nature per se.

As 1st Timothy 2: 4-5 attest:
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Complicating [if that is the correct term here?] this desires fulfillment is man’s Intellect, Mind and Freewill, which are permanent components of man;s Soul. What we might think of as our other-self.

Ever since someone nailed me for my Cartesian extreme dualism, I am leery of an “other-self,”

God certainly has done His part to fulfill this desire of His. From the Incarnation, to His Ministry, to His Death and Resurrection and the gifts of

His Church

His Commandments

& His Mother to u {John 19:25-28} & the Saints to be guides, models & Intercessors for us

Within in this trinity of Godly aids is the Divine Presence of the Holy Spirit who “Gifts” are the determining factor in anyone’s ability to actually comprehend and understand any or all Faith matters.

The “7 GIFTS” of the Holy Spirit are
Understanding
Counsel
Courage
Knowledge
Piety
Fear of the Lord {Awe 7 Wonder}
& Wisdom

Each is distributed at first as an OFFER of assistance from God

Then as we prove receptive to these Gifts/ Graces; they are granted in varying amounts and to varying degrees. It is NOT essential nor is is it “common” for everyone who SEEKS these gifts, to be granted all of them; or necessarily in “full-measure.”

SEE 1st Cor. 12: 26-30 & all of the short Chapter 13.

In 1 Corinthians 12: 14-15, I am a toenail.

Because right understanding is impossible without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, we can know that WRONG, incorrect and partial understanding is traceable back to that same source: God Himself.

Please explain completely “is traceable back to that same source: God Himself.” Thank you.

The multiplicity of understandings then with in and as a result of this shortfall in the existence of non-Catholic-Christian communities ought to be telling.

That dates back to Adam and Eve’s family. In every large family there is usually a rebel.

TRUTH as Pope Benedict XVI articulated so precisely:
“There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be no truth” is sufficient of this position.

Sounds like "objective truth and absurdity of relativism.

God Bless you,
Patrick

And do it quickly.

 

[inocente]

When we talk about relativity and morality we are not objecting to the idea that morality of something can be relative to certain conditions,like for instance the conditions of whether killing can be justified or not. Or the conditions that can justify war. We acknowledge those conditions. But rather whether the morality of the same action under the same conditions is the same for each person. This is what I think is the issue. In other words is murder wrong for you, but ok for someone else? Should morality be determined by each person or is it something external to us and for our well being? And should be objectively the same for all people. And thus enforced in laws.

There is an atheist philosopher named Sam Harris who claims that morality is objectively external to us and is about well-being. He argues that well-being can be determined objectively, and therefore science should organize morality to maximize well-being.

Personally, I’d say that although science can inform morality, it doesn’t seem at all reasonable to hand a defining aspect of human nature, moral agency, to a technical process. The issue is whether well-being is really objective, seems to me it has subjective elements which cannot be measured scientifically.

 

[tonyrey]

There is an atheist philosopher named Sam Harris who claims that morality is objectively external to us and is about well-being. He argues that well-being can be determined objectively, and therefore science should organize morality to maximize well-being.

Personally, I’d say that although science can inform morality, it doesn’t seem at all reasonable to hand a defining aspect of human nature, moral agency, to a technical process. The issue is whether well-being is really objective, seems to me it has subjective elements which cannot be measured scientifically.

Then it is an absolute, objective fact that there are subjective elements.