Relativism is Irrelevant (So is Absolutism)...Let's Talk about Justification

[MegaTherion]

The reason the example crossed my mind is that the examples are played out in real life. The nazi party probably thought they were making a rational evaluation of options. Who decides who does the evaluating?

Yes, the Nazis thought they were being rational. And in the same way, there are psychopaths who think they are doing the will of God by murdering.

I would say that the Nazis were not being rational (though they thought that they were), just as you would say that those psychopaths are not actually doing the will of God (though they think they are). The difference between our positions is that everyone on earth has access to reason, operates under the same logical principles, and can use it to evaluate the Nazi’s choices; but not everyone on earth has god beliefs or even remotely the same god beliefs.

So let’s look at the Nazis’ position. I did this on another thread not long ago. I determined that based on a rational evaluation of my own options, there is no situation in my daily life in which murder produces even remotely the best results (and in nearly every case, it produces the worst results). From this, I can abstract the general principle that murder is wrong. Further, I can conclude that murder on a massive scale is even worse.

Sure, the Nazis tried to justify themselves, but they were wrong, and any rational person examining the situation would conclude the same thing.

Now, Hitler also claimed supernatural justification for his actions. He did believe that he was chosen by some supernatural force (he often called it “fate,” and let’s leave it at that here – whether Hitler was actually a Christian or not doesn’t need to enter into this…he was a supernaturalist and a theist of some kind).

How could we possibly disprove his claim that he was chosen by a supernatural force? We have to oppose him not through supernatural claims, but instead through an appeal to reason and our common humanity.

Honestly, the fact that Hitler was wrong is so self-evident that it’s a little scary that some people won’t accept it without first believing in a supernatural being (a being who, according to the Bible, ordered genocides to be committed as well).

 

[fhansen]

Wether or not an “absolute” moral code would be better for all of humanity, for society to succeed and thrive in any way, we cannot use an absolute moral code to achieve it, if that code is through a simple statment “This is what God wants”.

Anyone can make that claim.

It really isn’t a matter of what we would “like” , but what we are living with. And we are living with lots of people who all claim to have an absolute truth and a moral code all must abide by.

In reality, we simply cannot survive like this, unless we want to end up destroying each other over our truths.

You idea, about what would be “better” isn’t the point of what the OP is saying. The point is, it is irrelevant for any one person to say what IS better. The idea however, is a nice one

What you’re saying, in a sense, is that even if what I claim about the GCB is true, it can’t matter in the public sphere unless nearly everyone happens to believe in it, too. And I’m saying that, because it’s true, everyone would be better off believing it. But you’re right; we’ll have no world where all agree on some religion or objective morality-let alone have a theocracy which can’t work here in any case.

However, I’m certainly not convinced that we can all be reasonable either-let alone agree as to what reason might deem to be a proper course of action. But it’s probably the best we can do. And as an example, utilizing reasoning put forth in this thread to reject murder, I think abortion is an extremely unreasonable and illogical reaction to the presence of a human life that may happen to cause inconvenience. Hopefully we’ll all agree-but somehow I have my doubts.

 

[cpayne]

But you’ve just repeated yourself – you haven’t addressed my objection: that your goal revolves around the idea of private property and your means denies the existence of private property. And that your means undermines the system your goal rests on.

There is no consistency in your position.

You could try to justify it (immoral people like you always try to justify it), but you’re wrong. It’s as simple as that. Any rational person examining the situation would conclude the same.

No one ever said that the standard should be what is good for the individual or for the majority. It’s terribly short-sighted to be concerned only with the self or with the majority group (that’s why American law protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority).

I think perhaps you’re missing the point of this thread and also (less importantly) of my posts. You keep aiming at a sort of Kantian “rational consistency in the willing of an action” to justify moral claims. However, the OP is arguing that there is NO universally compelling account that could justify the objectivity of moral claims. My posts are pointing out where that position leads to. I think perhaps your argument is with Leela, who has stated that she considers herself a pragmatist in the tradition of James and Rorty.

Also, I am agreeing with Leela (and perhaps with you?) that divine-command ethics is not the best way to go in a debate involving public policy. This is why the CC for the most part relies on natural-law ethics in public reasoning. And Kant, although he explicitly says not, is actually a lot closer to natural-law reasoning than most realize. He doesn’t like natural law because it relies (according to Aquinas) in its character AS LAW on a Lawgiver, even though we do not need to know the Lawgiver in order to recognize the rational requirements of the inner law. On this point, I agree with Aquinas and not with Kant (any moral law requires a lawgiver who can also reward and punish), although in actual practice both A. and K. probably would agree on the objective character of most moral laws.

In other words, Aquinas and Kant are a lot closer to each other than either is to Pragmatism. But I would still hold that simple “rational consistency in the willing of an action” is not enough to avoid my stealing, killing, lying if I have to, etc., position.

 

[Leela]

I think perhaps you’re missing the point of this thread and also (less importantly) of my posts. You keep aiming at a sort of Kantian “rational consistency in the willing of an action” to justify moral claims. However, the OP is arguing that there is NO universally compelling account that could justify the objectivity of moral claims. My posts are pointing out where that position leads to. I think perhaps your argument is with Leela, who has stated that she considers herself a pragmatist in the tradition of James and Rorty.

Also, I am agreeing with Leela (and perhaps with you?) that divine-command ethics is not the best way to go in a debate involving public policy. This is why the CC for the most part relies on natural-law ethics in public reasoning.

Hi All,

Based on the above, it sounds like a lot of interesting things are coming out in this thread, though I haven’t had time in the last several days to follow like I should be following it as the OP. I should have time tomorrow to catch up, and I apologize for my absence. Gotta run.

Best,
Leela

 

[PJM]

Relativism is Irrelevant… Let’s Talk about Justification

Dear friends,

What we have here in our discussion of Salvation by Faith Alone or in the 2000-year Old Catholic teaching, of Faith as proven and practiced through works is a failure to communicate.

We have on countless OP Threads replied to non-Catholic Protestant Theology that Faith is the only requirement to Salvation. Meaning Christ has already done all that is necessary. It’s interesting that the position seems to be it is “not only Christ Sacrifice on the Cross, but belief in the same, that “assures one’s salvation.” Friend, “Faith” is a “Work!”

We have provided Bible Quotes that make clear this position is factually anti-biblical. The common response is not to acknowledge receipt of this information, and to gloss over like it never exists.

One wonders if there might be some intellectual dishonesty in this tactic? If you hold the single truth, then you should NOT be afraid to be challenged on the validity of that truth to see if it withstands the evidence, wisdom and logic of the current time? There seems little opportunity, and willingness to discover truth.

Pope Benedict shared this profound thought There can’t be your truth and my truth, or there would be NO truth, which is THE TRUTH.

Can we agree that we cannot know the mind of God? Isaiah 55: 8-9

We get a glimpse of God’s Mind and Heart, by understanding God’s Nature, which has to be Good. Another truth, is that whatever attributes God possesses, God must possess them to a much higher degree than we can. **God is Perfect, and possesses every Good attribute to it’s Highest Perfection. **

What are some of these attributes that God possesses to their Perfection? God is All Good, Wise, Knowing, Loving, Kind, Powerful, Merciful, Generous and of course All Just (fair). God being God, the perfection of goodness, is and must be in each and every one of these manifestations of His Love.

We Christians are quick to acknowledge the attributes of God that we are comfortable with, but naturally tend to, at least, a little, to gloss over the fact that Yahweh God in the Old Testament was feared, more than loved.

The Hebrew relationship with Yahweh-God was a fearful one. God was quick to exercise His right for Just- Vengeance. (Deut. 32:35, Rom. 12: 19, Heb. 10:30.) But time and time again He relented, showed His Compassion and Merciful Love, and gave them another opportunity. **But first, He punished them with Just retribution. **

Fulton Scheen, points out in his book: ”The Imitation of Christ” that from God calling to Adam in the garden; “Where are you?” (Gen. 3:9), to Saving Noah, to Abram, changing his name to Abraham, and making him the Father of His chosen people, to Moses, the Prophets, Judges, and Kings like David and Solomon, right through to His Apostles “follow Me and I will make you fishers of men.” (Mt. 4:19.) **To the present day, Christ calls us, Mt, 16: 24 **“Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

” It is the very issue of God Justice, that is the stumbling block to the truth about Salvation and Justification.

Webster’s Dictionary definitions… Proves that “Redemption and Salvation” have different meanings.

Redemption, “to redeem -the act, process, or an instance of redeeming “

Our Blessed Lord’s Sacrificial Death the Cross (dare I use this word?) “Only” makes Heaven possible, and reverses the most notable effect of the Sin of Adam and Eve, access to Heaven is now possible.

Salvation: ““1 a: deliverance from the power and effects of sin b: the agent or means that effects salvation 3 a: preservation from destruction or failure b: deliverance from danger or difficulty”

Both are Necessary!

At this juncture it seems prudent to ask ourselves why, in all of God’s awesome Creations, are God Himself, The Angels and humanity blessed and gifted with “intellects and free-wills?” Surely God had something in mind, in bestowing these gifts upon and within us!

Zecharich 8:1, Exodus 34:14 and Psalm 79:5 explain God’s Jealously. “How long, O LORD? Wilt thou be angry forever? Will thy jealous wrath burn like fire?

God’s desire to have a permanent and Personal Relationship with His Created Humanity, which flows from unfathomable Love, that permits Divine Justice to INSIST, and require, that we Love Him in return, not only for His many gifts, but also for God’s many Sacrifices.

2nd. Cor. 6:1 Working together with him, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. For he says, “At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation.” Now is the acceptable time; Now is the day of salvation, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, beatings, labors, hunger; by purity, knowledge, forbearance, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love, truthful speech, and the power of God; in honor and dishonor, in ill repute and good repute. We are treated as impostors, **and yet are true;**as dying, and behold we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing everything.

2 Tim. 4: 1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead. Preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching”

 

[Leela]

Hi All,

My point that claiming to know what God wants for humans is of little use in public discourse on moral matters seems to be well-taken by all.

What I’m hearing from the theist side of this discussion is that it is superioor to possess an absolute moral standard for right and wrong handed down by a Law Giver than it is to believe that morality is a human affair concerned with how we as humans learn to get along with one another and pursue our common goals. They find that to be a very dangerous idea.

But as others have pointed out, there are those who believe that they also possess an absolute moral standard (Hitler and suicide bombers for example) that is much different form the one that Catholics claim is the true one.

I’m starting to think that in my OP I was wrong to say that absolutism is irrelevant. The examples of Hitler, Islamic fanatics, Communism, etc. suggest that claiming to be in possession of the one true absolute moral standard is quite dangerous to civilization.

It seems to me that the answer is not relativism or absolutism but a moral pluralism where there is no single correct set of moral laws, but there are still some sets of moral teaching that are more conduscive to human well-being than others and thus superior to others. I think we can come up with objective measures for human fourishing that we are likely to get broad agreement on (literacy, infant mortality, poverty, life expectancy, education, gender equality, for example), and we can study cultures to see what practices help or hinder such human goals.

A study was conducted by the United Nation to compare countries on such factors and the report can be found here:
hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

It is interesting to note that the very highest ranked countries in human development are among the least religious countries in the world and that the lowest ranked countries are deeply religious, but with the idea of moral pluralism in mind, I think it is likely that science will some day be able to help inform us about the benefits and costs to human well-being of various intentions, attitudes, prohibitions, uses of attention, concerns, empathy, and emotions. We may find that religion can be a good social institution among others for promoting human well-being in some societies, but the Human Development Report suggests to me that it is not a necessary one for all societies.

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

As sort of an aside, in Catholic theology if reason were able to reign consistently within each individual, moral evil would cease to exist.

 

[Dameedna]

What you’re saying, in a sense, is that even if what I claim about the GCB is true, it can’t matter in the public sphere unless nearly everyone happens to believe in it, too.

To a degree yes and No. If what you say is true , then so be it. But because it cannot be verified, it cannot ever be claimed as an absolute, and therefore cannot be used to determine how human society should be have.

It’s a moot point really and doesn’t help us.

This is NOT because truth is not important, but because in every area of life, other than scientific enterprise it is not verifiable, meaning, it is realtive to the person who claims it.

And I’m saying that, because it’s true, everyone would be better off believing it.

If “certain” ideas are true, I’m not sure everyone would be better off believing it.

IE, if it is true, the universe is all that there is I think a lot of humans would be in trouble. Perhaps a lie, is better for most of us than the truth.

I’m not sure, but I side with truth.

But you’re right; we’ll have no world where all agree on some religion or objective morality-let alone have a theocracy which can’t work here in any case.

That whole pesky free will thing

However, I’m certainly not convinced that we can all be reasonable either-let alone agree as to what reason might deem to be a proper course of action.

We can use reason, as a guide, but all it takes is one belief system to claim “Reason is the devils work, reason will get you into trouble, you MUST have faith in what I say(not reason) to get to heaven”

…and we are back to square one. The “concept” of reason, is not actually enough of a reason to care. Which is why people get so concerned about athiests.

And as an example, utilizing reasoning put forth in this thread to reject murder, I think abortion is an extremely unreasonable and illogical reaction to the presence of a human life that may happen to cause inconvenience. Hopefully we’ll all agree-but somehow I have my doubts.

It is not unreasonable at all, to support abortion if you believe that humans are animals and not a spiritual entity. It is not unreasonable to end the life of an embryo, etc etc, if humans have populated this planet beyond it’s capacity.

In fact, aborting a child, would be perfectly reasonable, if these are the assumptions you made. Better to end a life, before it even know’s it exists, than to let it starve to death. It would be better to feed it, but what if you can’t? What would be “reasonable” then?

Reason works both way’s I’m afraid. and it will alway’ be based on a premise.

It’s the premise, that humans need to agree on to go forward.

 

[PJM]

Hi All,

My point that claiming to know what God wants for humans is of little use in public discourse on moral matters seems to be well-taken by all.

 

[cpayne]

Perhaps the appeal to the United Nations is a bit ironic. What about the UN’s Declaration of Universal Human Rights? Do universal human rights exist? If so, upon what objective standard are they based? What is it about merely possessing a human nature that makes that human also possess basic rights?

I think we find ourselves again leaning toward the CC’s concept of natural law, or something very much like it.

 

[MegaTherion]

"Leela:

I’m starting to think that in my OP I was wrong to say that absolutism is irrelevant. The examples of Hitler, Islamic fanatics, Communism, etc. suggest that claiming to be in possession of the one true absolute moral standard is quite dangerous to civilization.

That seems quite right. “Absolute truth” is dangerous.

It seems to me that the answer is not relativism or absolutism but a moral pluralism where there is no single correct set of moral laws, but there are still some sets of moral teaching that are more conduscive to human well-being than others and thus superior to others.

This again seems right on target. I would submit that those “moral teachings” that you describe as “superior to others” can be abstracted from our experience by reason, and that we might describe them as “close to an absolute standard that we can get.”

Here, I mean very basic things like the prohibition against murder and stealing, actions that harm the very fabric of society and which result in negative consequences for everyone (including the doer of those actions) in nearly every occasion.

These are actions that any reasonable person would conclude are wrong. Because we can derive them from reason and experience, we have a basis for demonstrating that they are correct to everyone (without having to rely on specious claims of “revelation” or the “divine” that not all people share).

Perhaps the appeal to the United Nations is a bit ironic. What about the UN’s Declaration of Universal Human Rights? Do universal human rights exist? If so, upon what objective standard are they based?

I think it’s very important to realize that “human rights” do not mean some transcendental values descending upon us from elsewhere. Human rights come out of our experience, from our rational evaluation of our options in experience.

They “exist” insofar as any concept we have come up with exists, but they don’t correspond to some supernatural Platonic Idea.

 

[Leela]

Perhaps the appeal to the United Nations is a bit ironic. What about the UN’s Declaration of Universal Human Rights? Do universal human rights exist? If so, upon what objective standard are they based? What is it about merely possessing a human nature that makes that human also possess basic rights?

I think we find ourselves again leaning toward the CC’s concept of natural law, or something very much like it.

Hi cpayne,

I agree that “universal human rights” is a useful term we use to talk about morality, but I don’t think we have to think of them as based on any foundation other than the condition of human beings trying to live with one another. They are things that we’ve learned over time about how human flourishing is achieved. They are universal in that everyone pretty much agrees about them or at least many of think that everyone would be better of if we did all agree about them. We think they are absolute in that we don’t expect that new experience will ever cause us to need to update our views on these things.

I don’t know what objective standard someone could point to that would force someone else to believe in the value of such rights if they didn’t already believe in them. Do you?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Hi MegaTherion,

This again seems right on target. I would submit that those “moral teachings” that you describe as “superior to others” can be abstracted from our experience by reason, and that we might describe them as “close to an absolute standard that we can get.”

Here, I mean very basic things like the prohibition against murder and stealing, actions that harm the very fabric of society and which result in negative consequences for everyone (including the doer of those actions) in nearly every occasion.

What you’re saying reminds me of a talk by Sam Harris called “Can we ever be right about right and wrong”:
thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/sam-harris-1

Definitely worth watching. The short answer is that Harris thinks that we can hope to be right on questions about morality but morality may be something like food, where there is no absolute best diet for every person in the world, but we can say objectively that poison is bad for you.

These are actions that any reasonable person would conclude are wrong. Because we can derive them from reason and experience, we have a basis for demonstrating that they are correct to everyone (without having to rely on specious claims of “revelation” or the “divine” that not all people share).

…

I think it’s very important to realize that “human rights” do not mean some transcendental values descending upon us from elsewhere. Human rights come out of our experience, from our rational evaluation of our options in experience.

They “exist” insofar as any concept we have come up with exists, but they don’t correspond to some supernatural Platonic Idea.

Some of the above suggests what cpayne said may be an objection you have with me as a pragmatist. I wonder if you are setting up Reason as some supernatural Platonic ideal–a substitute post-enlightenment god like Justice and Truth as essences. I’m not actually sure what our disagreement is if any. Just thinking out loud.

Best,
Leela

 

[cpayne]

Hi cpayne,

I agree that “universal human rights” is a useful term we use to talk about morality, but I don’t think we have to think of them as based on any foundation other than the condition of human beings trying to live with one another. They are things that we’ve learned over time about how human flourishing is achieved. They are universal in that everyone pretty much agrees about them or at least many of think that everyone would be better of if we did all agree about them. We think they are absolute in that we don’t expect that new experience will ever cause us to need to update our views on these things.

Hi back to you.

I pretty much agree with this paragraph, if it is read through my lens. Everything you’ve said here sounds a lot like a description of natural law ethics.

One of the foundations of natural law principles is the inductive idea of the *jus gentium *of the Romans and, yep, Aristotle (as an early thinker in the “natural ends for humans” tradition). In other words, what have humans discovered to be common in the various laws of nations? Now you might say this commonality exists because humans have discovered these laws to be “useful” in getting along with each other; I would argue that the reason they are “useful” is because they are natural, and therefore objectively true for all humans.

P.S. I’m still a bit confused about the term absolutism. I’m thinking of it this way: “Some moral rules apply absolutely to all humans in all circumstances.” Is that its meaning? If so, I guess I would be an absolutist; however, I’ve never used that term before or been called that, so I’m not sure about it.

 

[cpayne]

Some of the above suggests what cpayne said may be an objection you have with me as a pragmatist. I wonder if you are setting up Reason as some supernatural Platonic ideal–a substitute post-enlightenment god like Justice and Truth as essences. I’m not actually sure what our disagreement is if any. Just thinking out loud.

I probably put words in MT’s mouth; for example, I don’t think he ever actually referred to himself as a Kantian; I just inferred that from the ethical position he was stating. I guess he can speak for himself better than I could speak for him, or should speak for him.

Anyway, all I meant was, if MT is in fact a Kantian, he would probably accept the idea of an objective standard for discerning right and wrong, a standard which would have nothing to do with whether or not a given ethical position “works.” In that case, he would be contrary to your position as I understand it.

 

[PJM]

That seems quite right. “Absolute truth” is dangerous.

It certainly is for those who reject to accept it:thumbsup:

This again seems right on target. I would submit that those “moral teachings” that you describe as “superior to others” can be abstracted from our experience by reason, and that we might describe them as “close to an absolute standard that we can get.”

It’s not “close,” it’s spot on.

Superiority has nothing to do with it. It is knowing (please note I did not say accepting) and living by this truth, that permits humanity to co-exist. “Accepting” is optional if ones lives it.

Here, I mean very basic things like the prohibition against murder and stealing, actions that harm the very fabric of society and which result in negative consequences for everyone (including the doer of those actions) in nearly every occasion.

These are actions that any reasonable person would conclude are wrong. Because we can derive them from reason and experience, we have a basis for demonstrating that they are correct to everyone (without having to rely on specious claims of “revelation” or the “divine” that not all people share).

So we the people can determine what actions are right, which are immoral, good and bad? Very conveinent:blush: Simply because a great many agree with your personal opinion, does not make it either right or true.

I think it’s very important to realize that “human rights” do not mean some transcendental values descending upon us from elsewhere. Human rights come out of our experience, from our rational evaluation of our options in experience.

Only insofar as they conform to known and accepted Moral Standards, based on God’s Ten Commandments.

Why of course they do! have you never heard of ***"The Constitutition of the United States of America?***They “exist” insofar as any concept we have come up with exists, but they don’t correspond to some supernatural Platonic Idea.

God bless you, and God Bless America!

 

[MegaTherion]

ISo we the people can determine what actions are right, which are immoral, good and bad? Very conveinent:blush: Simply because a great many agree with your personal opinion, does not make it either right or true.

I did not say “a great many.” Any reasonable person can determine these “universal” moral standards – it does not matter what most people think. What matters is what is indicated by a rational evaluation of one’s options and a rational abstraction of a few general principles from experience.

For example, I think we can all agree that slavery is wrong. Long ago in most societies, slavery was accepted. It was wrong then, regardless of what people thought.

So when the Bible depicts your god commanding his people to slaughter Midianite men and enslave/rape the Midianite women, that is an example of immoral behavior (see Numbers 31 for more details).

Only insofar as they conform to known and accepted Moral Standards, based on God’s Ten Commandments.

Yet only three of the ten commandments are laws here in the United States of America. These are the three that can actually be determined through reason.

If the “good book” that advocates slaughter, genocide, and slavery is your source of “accepted Moral Standards,” you can keep it.

 

[MegaTherion]

The short answer is that Harris thinks that we can hope to be right on questions about morality but morality may be something like food, where there is no absolute best diet for every person in the world, but we can say objectively that poison is bad for you.

That’s a wonderful analogy. Spot on.

I wonder if you are setting up Reason as some supernatural Platonic ideal–a substitute post-enlightenment god like Justice and Truth as essences. I’m not actually sure what our disagreement is if any. Just thinking out loud.

No, I don’t see reason as a supernatural or Platonic essence. I don’t think “truth” or “justice” are essences, either.

But I do think that in the world of day to day concerns, we can use reason as a tool to evaluate the options that are available to us. We may not always agree on the “best” course of action – and in fact, the “best” course of action may be a range of options that might each be more or less suitable to the individual’s nature.

But, to draw on that food analogy, we can all agree on what is poison. That is to say, we can rationally determine that some actions will almost always produce the worst results for ourselves and society, such that we can abstract as general principles certain guidelines that we can use.

I’m talking about extremely general principles that anyone who’s not a psychopath will subscribe to: not murdering, not committing genocide, not enslaving.

Perhaps a Catholic would consider these things “natural law.” But if you agree that there is a natural law that we can figure out on our own, I am baffled why we would need to subscribe to an unprovable “supernatural law” (perhaps “unnatural law” would be more appropriate).

This supernatural law (if we are to believe the Bible) appears to come from a being who is a monster by any standard of decency. The Old Testament is very clear that slavery, genocide, brutal slaughter, rape, etc. are perfectly okay with this “god” when he commands it. Further, the New Testament continues to support slavery (Paul’s letters…and did Jesus ever explicitly condemn slavery?).

In short, even if there is such a divine being who wants me to follow his supernatural law, he is clearly immoral. I will stick to natural law, thanks very much.

And no, I’m not a Kantian. Much more fond of Nietzsche, actually.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps a Catholic would consider these things “natural law.” But if you agree that there is a natural law that we can figure out on our own, I am baffled why we would need to subscribe to an unprovable “supernatural law” (perhaps “unnatural law” would be more appropriate).

2 reasons we need to subscribe to an “unprovable” supernatural law:
-natural law that we can figure out on our own is good, but not the entire law. Those who use only reason are excluding themselves from all things numinous and transcendent. (Incidentally, reason itself cannot prove that reason is exclusively the canon for determining reality.)

-because He exists. Truth trumps everything.

This supernatural law (if we are to believe the Bible) appears to come from a being who is a monster by any standard of decency. The Old Testament is very clear that slavery, genocide, brutal slaughter, rape, etc. are perfectly okay with this “god” when he commands it. Further, the New Testament continues to support slavery (Paul’s letters…and did Jesus ever explicitly condemn slavery?).

I am baffled why you resort to using biblical examples of what you claim as God’s immorality.

Wouldn’t your point be better made by stating that my God today, as I type this, has taken about 6 lives? In fact, in the time that you’ve been on these forums, God has taken over 100,000 lives! Why not use this as an example of the monstrous God you are more superior to morally?

 

[cpayne]

-natural law that we can figure out on our own is good, but not the entire law. Those who use only reason are excluding themselves from all things numinous and transcendent. (Incidentally, reason itself cannot prove that reason is exclusively the canon for determining reality.)

On the subject of why a divine (supernatural) law is needed in addition to the natural law, see also Aquinas’s *Summa Theologica *I-II.91.4.

Here’s an easy example: From the fact that I am posting here, you can infer certain things about me; for example, that I am human, that I know English, and so on. But you could never infer that I have two kids. To know that, you need a special revelation from me (which I just obligingly gave).