G
grannymh
Guest
I believe that the how and why is connected to us as human beings. We are worthy of being loved and respected.
Blessings,
granny
All human life is worthy of profound respect.
- Status
Blessings,
granny
All human life is worthy of profound respect.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Human consensus does not constitute “real” things as I am speaking of them. For example, governments are not actual real things, because they are just agreements that would disapear without man to honor them. In the same way, if morality is nothing more than popular consensus, it is not ultimately real. If if is not real in a certain way, then we can change it however we want if we change the consensus.
This leads to anarchy. Who gets to decide? Nations (Germany)? political groups? What is the “number” of people that constitutes a consensus?
D
Detales
Guest
The test of reality: Take a piece of paper and write down everything that doesn’t change, never has, and never will. That constitutes reality. Everything else is relative.
G
grannymh
Guest
Here’s my piece of paper.
The one thing which does not change regardless of how beat up it gets, how old it gets, how much it is wounded, how sick it is, how lonely and feeling unloved it is – The one thing about me that will never change is that as a human being, I am worthy of being alive.
Blessings,
granny
D
Dameedna
Guest
I wasn’t talking about what we agreed to was or was not morality.
I mean we agree that the concept exists in the first place.
Well obviously this is the issue we have. Lots of people, religions, governments deciding what is or is not right. And at the moment, no-one decides. If you answer that with “God decides” then fine. But no-one get’s to decide what is or is not correct about God, because…every human disagrees with certain God concepts. God, is not the place to start either.
No getting around that at the moment. If we can agree that there is a type of human behaviour(moral behaviour) that exists and enhances human life, then we can start from there.
No-one claiming any absolute, has any more “weight” than another. That also needs to be recognized before we can move forward.
E
elts1956
Guest
Very tricky:thumbsup:There are no absolutes.
That statment, claims…an absolute…therefore contradicting itself. The only logical statment that can be given is…
Absolutes exist
E
elts1956
Guest
There are no absolutes.
That statment, claims…an absolute…therefore contradicting itself. The only logical statment that can be given is…
Absolutes exist
There are Moral absolute truths which are known to everyone who listens to them. “They are written on the heart of man.” Pope John paul II.
In his Encyclical Vertatis Splendor, Pope John Paul had much to say regardng Moral truth. The following are some of his statements from that Encyclical.
He goes on to say that the negative precepts of the Decalogue—“You shall not kill; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness”—“express with particular force the ever urgent need to protect human life, the communion of persons in marriage,” and so on (no. 13). These negative precepts, which protect the good of human persons by protecting the goods meant to flourish in them, are among the universal and immutable moral absolutes proscribing intrinsically human acts, the teaching representing, as John Paul II himself asserts, the “central theme” of the encyclical (cf. no. 115). [14]
As noted, John Paul II affirms that the negative precepts of the Decalogue, are moral absolutes, and that the human acts proscribed by them are intrinsically evil acts. It is therefore necessary, in order for us to understand properly the teaching on natural law set forth in Veritatis splendor, to consider his thought on this crucially important matter, to which he devotes the fourth section of chapter two and a good part of chapter three. I will do so by examining the following points: (1) the moral specification of human acts, (2) the criteria for assessing their moral goodness or badness, (3) the truth that moral absolutes, by excluding intrinsically evil acts, protect the inviolable dignity of human persons and point the way to fulfillment in Christ.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
I believe that the concept is rooted in the unchanging mind of God, so the concept itself in unchangeable. If the concept is rooted in changing human minds, then the concept can change.
There is a major difference between religion-based morality systems and human agreement-based morality systems. If a moral system is rooted in religion, then we can use logic to evaluate that religion. Thus, there is a method of indirectly examining whether a certain morality system has merit using logic.
On the other hand, there is no such logic-based method for examining a system rooted in personal agreement- because agreement does not necessarily follow logic.
An objective religion-based morality system gains weight from the fact that it can be evaluated according to logic. Human agreement-based systems have no such “check” and thus they are more prone to serious error (such as class hatred by a majority).
D
Detales
Guest
My take on an absolute morality is the position of morality by correct Identity. If the “other” is seen as oneself, it is impossible to do harm to them and the only possibility is advancement of the community at whatever level. That is the root, I feel, of the two statements, positive and negative. of the Golden Rule. It is why it is said to love thy neighbor as thyself, because his is, in essence.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
What about self-destructive behaviors, like cutting? What about less extreme behaviors like overeating and not exercising?
D
Detales
Guest
What about them?
S
Sarpedon
Guest
It seemed to me like you were saying that if we regard others as ourselves, we will be uncapable of causing them harm and society will advance. What about behaviors that harm the self? Would these carry over to others (regarded as ourselves) as well?
D
Detales
Guest
Forgive me for being an idealist, but I was thinking of healthy, mature folks. I am aware that there are people who cut themselves, etc., as I have known such. That would mean that we would, again, ideally, have children grow up in situations where their feeling of having a body as a gift is incorporated in their upbringing. I am quite aware also that we have a range of beings in human bodies from the ferals to the Saints. When the “do unto/don’t do unto” injunctions were issued, presumably it was to a receptive or at least curious audience who were intending to learn a Way or about a Way of conduct fitting in the eyes of the Divine. In the case of this proposition the assumption is made that the “doer” has himself* and others in the catagory of “children of God.” Otherwise we may become enmired in parsing various degrees and kinds of awareness.
My theory here is that if we clearly see that others are our equals in that they are children of God, we will at least do them no harm. It is a general attitude I’m talking about fitting those who might be capable of utilizing it. A healthy individual does not knowingly harm himself. I have no desire to refine the idea any farther than that and get into the kind of litiguous particularization that has crippled both action and sanity in many instances.** It is just an idea.
*I’m adopting the convention here that seems to be making progress, of using one’s own gender in expositions in place of the clumsy his/her/their debate.
***The Death of Common Sense *P.K. Howard
My theory here is that if we clearly see that others are our equals in that they are children of God, we will at least do them no harm. It is a general attitude I’m talking about fitting those who might be capable of utilizing it. A healthy individual does not knowingly harm himself. I have no desire to refine the idea any farther than that and get into the kind of litiguous particularization that has crippled both action and sanity in many instances.** It is just an idea.
*I’m adopting the convention here that seems to be making progress, of using one’s own gender in expositions in place of the clumsy his/her/their debate.
***The Death of Common Sense *P.K. Howard
S
Sarpedon
Guest
I probably don’t substantially disagree with you, although I’m not sure I agree with your explanation. What I was trying to demonstrate is that the “Golden Rule” is not sufficient on its own (as many secular individuals would attest), because it does not specify what actions are good for the self, which is necessary for the Golden Rule to work. The Golden Rule can only work within the context of objective morality, because we have to know what we should do to ourselves before we think about whether we are doing those things to others.
If this crucial bit of the equation is not addressed, the Golden Rule is no more useful than the trite command “be good not bad.” This is a central logical problem of the “atheist bus ads” which say “Just be good for goodness’ sake!” Without a standard of morality, which is not provided by atheism, there is no way to know how to be good.
Again, I’m not saying I necessarily disagree with you.
D
Detales
Guest
Yes, I understand that you don’t necessarily disagree. I think, though, that what you might very well disagree with as a Catholic is the proposition of one *Self *being the Creator, content, and witness to All. From that standpoint, Essence, recognizing Itself, can do no harm. In fact, it can do no harm in any way shape or form. In becoming aware of Itself in Creation, It will only support Itself appearing as beings in attaining higher awareness. In all of this It remains untouched and unchanged in essence. Morality in this case is an invention of mind to account for having an innate feeling of unity and making rules to foster the experience of that.
Using the word “It” is exceptionally crude, I think, in terms of the ordinary way of regarding God as a Person, but I’m not sure how to express lack on gender qualification in this application.
So that is a highly simplisitc exposition, and there are many libraries written on the idea, but I thought it was one worth exploring.
Using the word “It” is exceptionally crude, I think, in terms of the ordinary way of regarding God as a Person, but I’m not sure how to express lack on gender qualification in this application.
So that is a highly simplisitc exposition, and there are many libraries written on the idea, but I thought it was one worth exploring.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
D
Dameedna
Guest
I think you sense the essence of things.
D
Detales
Guest
I take that as a high compliment, Dameedna. I worked many years in the employ of a remarkable man whom I laso considered to be my Mentor. After a very successful concert career, he gave up his lucrative career as a piano teacher and adjudicator based on the very numerous requests he constantly recieved fom people who came to him with “unsovable” religious and philosophical delimas, or who just needed help in their quest. This included Jesuit scholars, many of them, religious of every variety and description, all of whom acknowledged his profoud inisghts, leaders in every profession, the arts, sciences, etc. You would easily recognize some of the names of people who came to him and who recieved great pearls. He recieved credit from few, though it was clear that his influence had changed their lives. He was an artist and a philanthropist himself, supporting scholarships and helping people start businesses with talents they didn’t know they had. He treated each individual as a unique manifestation of God. In the close to thirty years I knew him I never saw anything but total consistency between his talk and his walk. I can say with all sincerity that I actually knew a Great Man as a walking talking Presence. Your acknowledgement is, in my heart, a homage to him, and means that I might actually have learned something, LOL!
D
Dameedna
Guest
Bugger…
Am I allowed to be jealous?lol.
I have not met such a profoud individual as this, but I do have a very good friend, who has changed me completely as a person. She was a strange one. At first I thought she was a bit daft…she seemed to accept everything that came her way, even people who were obviously using her and treating her with disrespect. I…thought she was naive.
Boy was I wrong.
She lived, as she believed was correct. Treat everyone with love and respect. Trust what they tell you because to them, it is meaningful and truth.
I’ve never met a human that had such a capacity for unconditional love. What started out as a relationship where I thought I “needed” to take care of her due to her naivety, ended up with a relationship that I relied on so deeply that she to this day probably doesn’t realize how she changed my life. She never intended to. She just was.
In a way, when you come across a person that has gotten in touch with a sort of absolute love it just changes you. It doesn’t matter to me, where it comes from really.
I do think absolutes exist absolutely. hehe…I just think what people percieve as absolutes, is incorrect. Love simply has no boundaries.
E
Ender
Guest
We may all agree that the word exists but its not at all clear that we all mean the same thing when we use it.
If we reject God as the place to start because there is disagreement about his laws then surely, by that criterion, there is no place to start since there will always be disagreement about any “starting” point.
I think this is nothing more than swapping terms, “enhancing human life” for “morality.” What is it about morality that one would claim does not enhance human life?
This seems like a rejection of the concept of absolutes. Personal claims notwithstanding, either absolutes (objective moral truths) exist or they don’t and the person who rightly claims to know what they are is correct and everyone else is incorrect. I believe that there are two requirements for objective truth: obviously it has to exist but it also has to be knowable or it might as well not exist at all. It seems to me that you are claiming it is not knowable which, if true, means that for all practical purposes absolutes don’t exist.
Ender
- Status