R
Ridgerunner
Guest
“Values” over principles again. They took a principled stand. You are imposing your values on them, as did Obama. Most posters here, I believe, think better of the Little Sisters than you do.
- Status
J
J_Peterson
Guest
Goodness gracious. Values are principles.
From M-W:
something (such as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable
Oxford English:
Principles or standards of behaviour; one’s judgement of what is important in life.
From M-W:
something (such as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable
Oxford English:
Principles or standards of behaviour; one’s judgement of what is important in life.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No it isn’t “state coercion”. Trump doesn’t have the power to change tax laws. Only congress does. NFL had a favorable tax treatment, which owners still have. Liberals complain about the tax breaks oil companies get and want to end them as part of their global warming theology. That Trump intended to influence a business decision of the NFL owners is beyond dispute. That’s a different thing from punishing the Little Sisters with fines and possible contempt of court if they didn’t violate the tenets of their religion.
But I do understand that abortion (abortifacients were included in the HHS mandate) is part of the theology of the left. One can reasonably expect Catholics on here to understand the difference. To those unfamiliar with Catholic teaching or who are hostile to it, it’s reasonable to expect hostility toward the Little Sisters’ attempt to live by it.
There is not likely to ever be agreement between those points of view.
But what is beyond dispute is that Obama deliberately attempted to force the Little Sisters to betray their religious faith. Likely the left, which apparently believes in doing such things, will continue along that path if they regain power.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
They are quite different.
“Values” are subjective, as the OED you cited says…“one’s JUDGMENT”.
As the MW definition points out, one might adopt certain principles as one’s “values” and might, in fact, defer to principles as guidelines of our actions regardless of what we think about them, subjectively. That really goes to the core of what it rightly is to be “Catholic”; an adherent of a Church that purports to have universal authority to teach what is objectively true. Dissidents from that prefer to adhere to their own subjective “values”, which is the very core of protestantism. (“MY bible says…”)
The trouble with worshipping “values”, as Nietzsche pointed out a century and more ago, is that they provide no mooring or basis of universal agreement and readily go awry. Since “values” are subjective, they clash of their very nature. Ultimately, power determines the “winner”. The takers and holders of power are, thus, the “supermen” of whom Nietzsche, more presciently than he probably realized, foretold. He did not, for example, foretell Stalin the man, but he certainly foretold Stalin the archetype.
That’s the basis for his often-quoted assertion that “God is dead”. That was not a theological statement on his part or a triumphalist declaration. Even he lamented it. By “God”, he meant the ultimate purveyor of objective “principles”. He meant “principles are dead” in a world rapidly turning to “values” for guidance of its actions.
The Little Sisters acted on the “principles” taught by the Church and deemed by Catholics to be ineluctable. Obama imposed his “values” on them. Since he sees nothing wrong with abortion and, in fact, considers it a good thing subjectively, he probably thought it a good thing to force those recalcitrant sisters to act according to his personal and subjective vision of right and wrong. He was acting as the “superman of the moment”. As we know, the DNC itself considers the Church “backward” and “medieval” because it will not “adapt to the times”. As I said previously, we’ll be seeing a lot more force applied to the Church to conform to leftist “values” if the left comes to power again.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
And principles? …
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I believe the quote from this post was made by Jig Saw, not me.7_Sorrows:
No it isn’t “state coercion”. Trump doesn’t have the power to change tax laws. Only congress does. NFL had a favorable tax treatment, which owners still have. Liberals complain about the tax breaks oil companies get and want to end them as part of their global warming theology. That Trump intended to influence a business decision of the NFL owners is beyond dispute. That’s a different thing from punishing the Little Sisters with fines and possible contempt of court if they didn’t violate the tenets of their religion.
But I do understand that abortion (abortifacients were included in the HHS mandate) is part of the theology of the left. One can reasonably expect Catholics on here to understand the difference. To those unfamiliar with Catholic teaching or who are hostile to it, it’s reasonable to expect hostility toward the Little Sisters’ attempt to live by it.
There is not likely to ever be agreement between those points of view.
But what is beyond dispute is that Obama deliberately attempted to force the Little Sisters to betray their religious faith. Likely the left, which apparently believes in doing such things, will continue along that path if they regain power.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
Everything is subjective. Even God, from our perspective, is subjective. That’s why we can’t offer proof of our experiences of God, they are too subjective.
Even our belief that the Church teaches objective truth is subjective. We believe because we feel it’s true.
Even our belief that the Church teaches objective truth is subjective. We believe because we feel it’s true.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Ah, yes. I think we can jump ahead a bit and stipulate that radical skepticism is subjectively indefeasible, and thus spare everyone going down that ultimately uninteresting and intellectually unrewarding rabbit hole.
For Catholics, that argument is both uninteresting and unrewarding because those who do not accept the teaching authority of the Church, for example, can ultimately deny the validity of its principles by denying its authority to elucidate the truth. The Church, of course, claims that its authority is imparted by God, the source of all truth and therefore of all “principles”. Atheists, of course, would deny that there is a God at all. Agnostics would challenge the reliability of anything said to emanate from God. Some Protestants would say that God speaks only through the bible and proceed to interpret its meaning subjectively.
And so, for believing Catholics, the argument with skepticism dead-ends fairly early in the game. Oceans of ink have been spent on that debate and on reliable ways of knowing.
For those of a more secular or less sectarian bent, recourse is still had to truths held to be objective truths. In the Declaration of Independence, for example, it is asserted that humans have “unalienable rights” bestowed by “their Creator”, that do not admit of subjective rejection. Of course, there are those who would challenge every element of that assertion, and do.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
That belief is not, in itself, subjective. It depends on whether the bible is the revealed Word of God or not, and to a lesser extent on whether it’s reasonable to believe its plain language.
As even Aquinas said, no argument can ever suffice against universal skepticism, because the latter allows for denial of even the most obvious reality. Even Descarte’s famous dictum “Cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) can be challenged. (But am I deluded in thinking I think?) The problem of course is that if we reject the bases of all principles, we really do end up with the “superman” who imposes “values” through raw power. I think the 20th Century taught us that’s not a good thing, as nothing would stand between us and power, and simply “being human” would have no inherent claim to respect at all.
Believing Catholics are, of course, spared that intellectual charnel house.
Last edited:
J
J_Peterson
Guest
Unless God Himself came to you, as He is in Himself, and said that it’s all true then your belief is subjective. If it is objective you should be able to show that it’s absolutely true and I can’t see how that’s possible. We accept principles on faith.
I think this Pope Francis quote is apt.
If one has the answers to all the questions - that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble.
I think this Pope Francis quote is apt.
If one has the answers to all the questions - that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It would be nice to know the context, but you didn’t provide it. Unless you are just cherry-picking a statement to support your skepticism, you’ll provide it so we can see it.
Frankly, I question whether Pope Francis was, in the context, surrendering to skepticism about the truth of revelation or the teaching authority of the Church. But you can provide us the context so we can see his statement in full.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
I’m not talking about skepticism but faith. Faith is subjective.
Here is the whole interview: A Big Heart Open to God: An interview with Pope Francis
Here is the whole interview: A Big Heart Open to God: An interview with Pope Francis
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
None of which endorses subjectivity or rejection of the teaching authority of the Church, or a rejection of the concept of objective truth. He’s arguing against the sin of presumption, which the Church has always condemned.
Additionally, Pope Francis is well known for his argument against judging the individual solely by application of objective standards. But that does not imply a rejection of the fact that there is such a thing as objective right and wrong.
Never does Pope Francis deny that some things are right, objectively and some are objectively wrong. And the above quote certainly does not say it or imply it.
So, for example, in speaking of the sin of abortion, he said:
“Let us remember the words of the Second Vatican Council: From the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.”
He did not say “maybe it’s an unspeakable crime for those who think it is”. He simply said they “are” unspeakable crimes. That’s objective. Now, in view of his realization of the subjective state of women who have had them, he relaxed the procedural rules for obtaining forgiveness in the confessional, allowing ordinary priests to extend God’s forgiveness for the sin. Nor did he say “…it will be forgiven if the penitent thinks so…”
Additionally, Pope Francis is well known for his argument against judging the individual solely by application of objective standards. But that does not imply a rejection of the fact that there is such a thing as objective right and wrong.
Never does Pope Francis deny that some things are right, objectively and some are objectively wrong. And the above quote certainly does not say it or imply it.
So, for example, in speaking of the sin of abortion, he said:
“Let us remember the words of the Second Vatican Council: From the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.”
He did not say “maybe it’s an unspeakable crime for those who think it is”. He simply said they “are” unspeakable crimes. That’s objective. Now, in view of his realization of the subjective state of women who have had them, he relaxed the procedural rules for obtaining forgiveness in the confessional, allowing ordinary priests to extend God’s forgiveness for the sin. Nor did he say “…it will be forgiven if the penitent thinks so…”
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Faith is subjective, in that it either inheres within a person or it does not. Faith is fundamentally a decision. But that does not mean there is no such thing as objective truth. Either God exists or He doesn’t, and His existence does not depend on my having or lacking faith. The Church teaches that He does exist, and without equivocation of any kind.
Guilt, in a moral sense, is also subjective. But that does not mean there’s no right or wrong. It has always been Church teaching that guilt might be moderated or even removed, depending on, say, why I kill someone even without justification. But my deliberate killing someone without justification is always objectively evil.
As Catholics, we do have an obligation to conform our actions to the teachings of the Church about objective right and wrong. That we fail, and oftentimes rationalize that failure, does not mean the Church endorses moral relativism. And the obligation does not depend on whether we “agree” with the Church or not.
D
dvdjs
Guest
No, please don’t jump ahead.
Just explain what you see as the between values and principles.
Last edited:
X
Xystus
Guest
I found this on values vs principles. maybe somebody will like to read it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The article contains a brief, but not a terrible discourse on the difference between principles and values.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
My point is that accepting that something is a principal or eternal truth is subjective. We can’t see or hold objective truth in our hand. We can accept it or not. How do you prove what you call objective truth objectively? I’m not sure it can be done.
I believe that killing someone without justification is objectively evil. I can’t prove it in any way so my accepting it is subjective and most likely based on an emotional reaction. Besides you can always come up with a justification (i.e. he had sex with my wife, they stole my car, etc.) Look how easy it is for people to accept that abortion is morally neutral. Everything goes through a subjective mind.
I believe that killing someone without justification is objectively evil. I can’t prove it in any way so my accepting it is subjective and most likely based on an emotional reaction. Besides you can always come up with a justification (i.e. he had sex with my wife, they stole my car, etc.) Look how easy it is for people to accept that abortion is morally neutral. Everything goes through a subjective mind.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I am not arguing that point. I wish the new CAF told what a poster’s religion is, because an appropriate answer for Catholics is not the same as it would be for a protestant, and neither would be appropriate for an atheist, and nothing would be adequate for a radical skeptic.
For a believing Catholic, one would start a discussion from Church teachings in order to examine mores and values that flow from them; the teachings being the “principles” that are the starting point. The Church would argue that its teachings have their roots in revelation and right reason, but further that the Church has teaching authority granted by Jesus Himself.
For “biblical” protestants, the starting point would be the bible. But that can be shaky ground because Protestantism insists on personal interpretation of the bible. Nevertheless, agreement on at least some things can usually be arrived at; like the equivalence of “thou shalt not kill” with “thou shalt not murder”.
To an agnostic, it might be a reasonable starting point to talk of that which appears most likely to lead to an orderly society, or widespread prosperity or human psychology. And a common starting point might be found with an atheist on the same basis.
To a true skeptic, nothing will do because at least some of them deny that reality can be known at all, on any level. Some even deny the reality of their own existence or thoughts as thoughts.
Without knowing what another accepts or does not, it is really not possible to have a fruitful discussion. But I will add this much. If you believe all reality is as subjectively experienced and that there are no objectively true principles, then I very much doubt anything I say will cause you to believe anything at all.
The downside to such a belief, if widely held, is that ultimately only power really matters because in ordering society, nobody can really be counted on to respect the same things, and only the fiat of a ruler is relevant in determining how a society operates. That was Nietszche’s point in saying (if) “God is dead”, then the only resort in determining human conduct is to the power of the 'superman"; i.e. the person with the strength to impose his will or “values”.
It is exactly a foundational position of the Catholic Church that it really does teach objective truth. The application of those teachings is what we base our decisions upon in any given circumstance in which we reasonably ask ourselves what the moral choice is. Or at least we should. Catholicism also recognizes that we’re all sinners who do not do the objectively right thing a good part of the time.
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
I don’t think I am imposing my values here. I am trying to apply Catholic teaching, and it seems to me that it is remote cooperation with evil and hence, not really an issue.
- Status