T
ThomasToo
Guest
Fair enough. Kind of funny the atheist is defending moral realism to a Catholic. I don’t think this is how the script is supposed to go.
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
I base my moral decisions on facts rather than labels! You can call me what you like but I certainly would not allow countless people to be maimed and slaughtered because of blind adherence to a principle. I’m quite sure a sole survivor would hardly enjoy being alive if he knew everyone else had died so that he could live - in misery and with a sense of guilt…
T
ThomasToo
Guest
That was by no means, I didn’t mean for it to sounds like I was calling you anything. I was just trying to understand your thinking.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
tony,
I don’t think the question revolves around the idea of the person who isn’t murdered not enjoying his life afterward. I mean, I think you could also say that those who survive on the account of a murdered man might not enjoy being alive. Juvenal said “Consider it the greatest of crimes to prefer survival to honour and, out of love of physical life, to lose the very reason for living”. I for one would feel that my very reason for living is lost if I countenance murder in order that I may live.
I would think that whatever physical evil happens from not choosing to do a morally evil act is less harm than doing a morally evil act.
Are you familiar with Veritatis splendor? Do you find fault with it?
VC
T
tonyrey
Guest
And I didn’t mean to be offensive. I apologise if I did. I am simply being realistic and considering what **I **would do if I had no other option. I may well be mistaken. I don’t claim to be morally infallible or to legislate for others but like everyone else I have to obey my conscience. That is where the wisdom of the Church shines in the darkness. Nothing will ever convince me it would be right to do nothing in such a situation. To kill a person is a terrible crime but to stand by and allow many more to be maimed and killed seems to be even worse…
T
ThomasToo
Guest
You weren’t offensive at all.
I see what you’re saying I suppose but I’d have a hell of a time convincing myself to shoot a perfectly innocent man no matter what’s at sake.
B
Betterave
Guest
You are aware, Tony, that you can have a poorly formed conscience, that such a conscience does not represent the wisdom of the Church shining in the darkness, and that such a conscience can be morally culpable for its own depravity? “My conscience told me to” isn’t simply a free pass according to the wisdom of the Church.
A
Areopagite
Guest
I already gave my argument. I said if you think that the ultimate good is “not suffering” (which is what Epicureans believe) and yet you think it is necessary sometimes to do things that will cause you suffering (which the Epicureans also believe), then the conclusion is that it is necessary sometimes to go against the ultimate good.
Now, perhaps I made a mistake in this argument (if so, please point it out), but it is nonetheless an argument.
Like before, I was drawing a logical conclusion from principles that the Epicureans claim to believe.
I was saying that if one believes that “not suffering is happiness” then it follows that non-existence would be the only state you could be in where happiness could be assured because there would be no possibility of suffering. And, if non-existence is only achieved by death (which is what the Epicureans believed) then it would follow that death would be the surest path to happiness.
Once again, I was saying that if you accept Epicurean premises, then you must also logically accept that death is the surest path to happiness.
There have even been some Epicureans that have seemed to hint at this.
A
Areopagite
Guest
I hope so. That would be cool.
Wow. That’s quite a statement. And I reject it. Good luck trying to prove that one.
Did he? I don’t think he did. Darwin distinguished the human species from other animal species … and hence, he acknowledged the existence of human nature.
Now, you’re probably going to say that Darwin proved that there are no “species” or something like that but that he rather merely acknowledged the existence of “speciation.” But this is contradictory, since speciation is the defined as “the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.” Hence, speciation doesn’t exist unless you acknowledge the reality of species. And if humans are a species (which is what Darwin thought), then they have an essence (i.e. something that makes them what they are … in this case human), and if an essence then a nature.
Darwin did not show that there was no such thing as human nature. Nor did he ever try to do such a thing.
I don’t know what this means. I can’t run at the speed of light. Is that just my moral imagination constraining me? No, it’s because of my nature. The nature of light, however, can reach that speed, and that is because of its nature.
Wha?
I acknowledge that Jesus provided a supernatural way to attain things beyond our natures … but not against our natures.
So, you’re saying that if some oppressive ideas involved the idea of “nature” … then all ideas that involve “nature” are oppressive? Obviously, that doesn’t exactly follow.
Once again, how do you figure out what morality is? You seem to acknowledge some standard of “better.” However, as I said, certain things are good for A but may not be good for B. So, we have to figure out what is good for us. And to figure out what is good for us, we need to figure out what our nature is. This is pretty obvious, no?
I have no idea what that means.
But what is suffering? What is happiness? We have to figure out what makes a human suffer and what makes a human happy. And in order to do that. We must acknowledge that there is such a thing as a human and then study that species carefully. Otherwise, it’s quite obviously a lost cause.
Does this make sense? Am I a raving lunatic?
A
Areopagite
Guest
Putting aside “resonation”, can you critique my claims rationally? Where do I go wrong? Or do you merely reject my claims (and I do mean Aristotle’s) simply because it doesn’t feel right?
And by the way, Aristotle’s ethics is perhaps the most influential ethical system in history. It has “resonated” very well in that sense.
Once again, Aristotle has influenced plenty of people and changed plenty of perspectives … perhaps more than any other philosopher (sure that’s debatable, but that’s the opinion of many scholars, including many non-Christian ones).
Both are important and both are necessary. Imagination must be based on something, and in order to be useful, it must be based in reality and take that into consideration.
It’s very much a relevant question. Because if doing something (like obedience in this case) necessarily makes us unhappy, then it is against our nature to be obedient. Not everything will make us happy … which points to reality that we have definite nature, and it would be useful to discover what that is.
And yet you are pontificating how we ought to be … i.e. we should not be concerned about “nature” but with “moral imagination.” Obviously, you implicitly acknowledge the existence of a standard about ourselves.
Not all claims about human nature are true. But that doesn’t mean that all claims that human nature exists is false.
I could say that “philosophy” is evil because many bad things have been done in the name of some “philosophy.” But obviously, that is a non-sequitur.
Well, I agree with you totally here. You even seem to suggest here that human nature does exist. But I would say that, merely on the level of nature, we cannot go beyond our human nature, for that would be breaking the laws of nature. However, I do believe in a supernatural path, wherein God gives us the ability to not only achieve things beyond our nature but to even become one with the divine nature … and that is where all things are possible.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
A
Areopagite
Guest
It depends what you mean by “determines.” Are you asking “Who causes me have a poorly formed conscience?” or are you asking “Who is able to make a necessarily true judgment whether my conscience is well formed or not?”
Once again, what do you mean by “determines?”
I’m not sure what this is asking.
And what does that mean exactly?
That would not be an automatic excommunication (because not all sins are automatic excommunications), but in theory the Pope could excommunicate you if he so decided. Would you be condemned to hell? Well, the criteria of mortal sin is: full knowledge, full consent, and circumstances … and if you meet those and don’t repent … then, yes, you are going to hell.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The latter.
Which persons decide?
I am asking who rejects the belief that my conscience is my ultimate authority.
It means that the truth that my conscience is my ultimate authority is disregarded.
Do you believe that the Pope is infallible with regard to all individual moral decisions?
Who would decide whether those criteria are applicable - apart from God?
There is another factor to be taken into account. If the driver is going to be killed in the nuclear holocaust anyway the absurdity of failing to prevent it is even more evident…
In cases of absolute necessity innocent people have often been killed knowingly and deliberately - as in a just war… Why should the war against terrorism be any different?
L
Leela
Guest
Well sure. I assume we both think it is a nice thing to do to help an old lady cross the street or buy lemonade from the kids while we oppose rape and murder.I hope so. That would be cool.
You are referring to: “Where we disagree in the above is in thinking that there is something called Human Nature that we need to conform to. In the past this notion has always been a tool of oppression,”
I think your objection comes from reading me to say that the notion of human nature has only ever been used to oppress. I’m just saying that since there has been such a notion it has been a tool of oppression while also a tool to do other things like try to figure out what is right as you are trying to do.
Species are part of a useful classification system but not are no longer thought of as static or clear cut. Any lines we draw will always be arbitrary to some extent.
According to evolutionary theory there is no teleological principle–no essence–that cats and dogs and humans have been trying to conform to for all these years to reach a final form which they now have. There is no end in mind. In fact, there is no end, just ongoing evolution which is not moving toward anything (beyond undefined betterness or “fitness”) but rather away from something–static changeless death.
Did you ever wonder why c is used to denote the speed of light while z is obviously the fastest letter in the alphabet? Maybe we’ve been saving up z for some really fast person who hasn’t been born yet.
I don’t see how a description of the way things are right now can tell us how things ought to be in the future. This is not to say that it is useless to try to understand what we are generally like, but knowing that men, for example, by their biological nature, are inclined toward multiple sexual partners does not tell us that men ought to have multiple sexual partners.
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
I think that whenever you reach a contradiction, you can always make a distinction. That tells us just how easy and trivial it is have a self-consistent philosophical system.
I don’t think that anyone who does not already know that cruelty is wrong will be convinced by reading Aristotle.
I don’t think that we have a duty to anything powerful and nonhuman such as a pre-existing Moral Law for how we ought to behave. My only duty is to my fellow sentient beings with whom I am fortunate enough to spend a lifetime. If you ask me why I ought to be concerned about other humans, I will have no answer for you. I often hear that for atheists there is something important lacking–a needed philsophical foundation–in not having an answer to this question so suposedly satisfying as “because God says you ought to.” I don’t think anyone gets convinced of the virtue of love by means of any rational argument. I think that anyone who needs to ask the question, “why love?”, is the one who is lacking something important and is probably a sociopath and a lost cause who may need to be locked away to protect the rest of us.
Best,
Leela
A
Areopagite
Guest
If that’s what you’re saying, then I have no objection.
You said species are “no longer thought of as static or clear cut” … but by whom? And why should I automatically believe those people (if that’s what you’re suggesting)?
Now when you say that the lines between species are “arbitrary” to some extent, this could mean different things. This could either mean that …
- We impose distinctions on a reality that actually has no real distinctions (the ultimate consequence being that reality is meaningless)
- We grasp a reality that does have real distinctions but commonly with inexact mental detail (the ultimate consequence being that reality in itself is meaningful but that our understanding of it is not … though our mental distinctions can come closer and closer to real distinctions with ongoing observation)
I’m a realist, and this is because I think reality is … well … real.
“Evolutionary theory” says no such thing, unless you are referring to Evoluntionism or something like that. There are plenty of evolutionists who believe in essence. In fact, any evolutionist that acknowledge the existence of cats would thus believe in essence. To deny the existence of essence would be to deny that there is no difference between a cat and a dog. Every scientist I’ve ever come across has acknowledged there is such a difference.
This does typify honest evolutionism (though not necessary the theory of evolution), but it doesn’t really make sense. If you don’t acknowledge the existence of real distinctions, then everything is the same … i.e. static. Essences must exist for there to be change.
This was the number one topic discussed by the Pre-Socratics (the earliest Greek philosophers in recorded history). And the conclusion was that there must be real distinctions for there to be change … or else change is a mere illusion and reality is completely static.
I’ll just smile and nod with that one.Did you ever wonder why c is used to denote the speed of light while z is obviously the fastest letter in the alphabet? Maybe we’ve been saving up z for some really fast person who hasn’t been born yet.
Wait … are you saying that nature does exist now? (b/c you said it’s men’s biological nature). I’m confused.
In any case, I’m not claiming that any action performed by a thing is necessarily an action that fulfills that thing’s nature. Actions can sometimes bring that thing away from the correct function of that thing.
You see, as Aristotle said (and this makes a lot of sense), everything has a static nature (termed a “substantial form”), as well as changeable attributes (termed “accidental forms”). A deer, for example, has a static form (the form of a deer), as well as changeable attributes (like its posture, colors, actions, etc.). If the substantial form is lost (e.g. if the deer is destroyed), then that thing is no longer the thing that it was … it’s no longer a deer. However, for a deer to be a deer, it has to have a static form as long as the deer exists … because as soon as that substantial form changes … it’s not a deer anymore.
Now, since there is this substantial form that exists as long as the thing is the thing that it is, there is thus a consistent standard for that thing. Yet the thing does not always live up to that standard because its accidents (which are changeable but nonetheless a part of the thing) can change and even be in conflict with the right functioning of the substantial form.
Now, I could say a lot more about this … Aristotle has already said it … but I could go into it more if you want.
A
Areopagite
Guest
Are you trying to justify your inconsistencies by condemning consistency? I don’t know why you’re saying this, I apologize.
I’m not sure why you (and a lot of people I meet) say stuff like this. When I’m having a discussion with someone, commonly the person will say, “Well, I’m not going to be convinced by you, and you’re not going to be convinced by me.” What?! Do they deny that “being convinced by something” is possible? In any case, there have most definitely been times where I have been convinced (and converted) by an argument, and there have even been some times where I have convinced someone else. And, I know for a fact, there have been people convinced by the writings of Aristotle, specifically the Nicomachean Ethics, for I witnessed such a thing in a class discussion.
I am one who believes that people have the ability to be convinced by reasonable arguments sometimes … but maybe I’m just a dreamer.
Do we even have a duty to anything human? Because if you deny essence, then there are no humans.
Thank you.
And this shows that atheism is ultimately unreasonable. It lacks a philosophical foundation. The things they believe in come from no where without any reason. And if they believe in something without reason … then they are by definition unreasonable.
And perhaps those sociopaths just haven’t read Aristotle.
Truly, though, it seems that oftentimes hateful people are born because they are fed a unreasonable view of love. This seems to be the case with men at least … women intuit the value of love much more naturally it seems. But men seem to demand more clearly thought out reasons for things in general (a weakness? perhaps). If love is unreasonable and just fluffy niceness without any understandable justification … then it is no wonder why people are sometimes inclined to reject it.
Philosophy, above all else, should establish the reasons for love, otherwise screw philosophy. That’s what I say.
A
Areopagite
Guest
So, you are asking “Who is able to make a necessarily true judgment whether my conscience is well formed or not?” Only God.
“Who is able to make a necessarily true judgment whether I am morally culpable?” Once again, only God.
“Who is able to make a necessarily true judgment whether I am depraved?” Again, only God.
Depends what you mean by “ultimate authority.” Your conscience is certainly not an “infallible authority” for it can judge something to be good when it is in fact evil. However, despite that, it should never be a thing to disobey … and in that sense it is the “ultimate authority.”
Any power with the authority to protect society, does not know your conscience or culpability, even if you claim “I’m following my conscience.” Their job only extends punishing actions of individuals that harm society … it does not pertain to punishing souls for necessarily culpable acts against conscience.
God, in that sense, is the only “true judge” because He punishes in such a way that it takes into account your culpability perfectly. But non-omniscient authorities are not capable of this nor are they expected to be.
Nope. It is possible that he can excommunicate someone wrongly. Nonetheless, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides him with greater involvement even in the case of moral decisions (and thus deserves more respect), but it is nonetheless possible for him to err in this matter.
Excommunication is not a ticket to hell … unless the excommunicated person persists in his sin with awareness. Excommunication is issued in the hope that it wakes someone up to their error or sin.
No one.
So, you are saying that one can do evil to accomplish good? That ends do justify the means?
Not sure what you mean by “absolute necessity.”In cases of absolute necessity innocent people have often been killed knowingly and deliberately - as in a just war… Why should the war against terrorism be any different?
Wars are just not because everything done in the war is just but because the war was waged for good reasons. There can be plenty of injustices in a just war.
Innocents can be justly killed knowingly only by the principle of double effect, in which case it is an unintended (though foreseen) side-effect. Did someone talk about this already? We could go into this more, if we want.
T
tonyrey
Guest
- Status