The recurring question without an answer

[Freddy]

Seriously, though: if we were to assert, simultaneously, that murder is wrong and murders actually happen, that wouldn’t be a concession that “relative morality” is in play. Rather, it would be an assertion that absolute morality is what’s being proposed, but that humans don’t always meet the standards of that morality.

That wasn’t your point as well you know. You said that killing children was not something that you could defend because ‘one can understand it in the context of the time and culture’.

If I had said that I would have been howled down as a supporter of relative morality. You seem to be able to say it with a straight face and no qualms.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The guy has said he is going to kill you and your family. While he is arguing with your wife you slip off and take his gun without his permision. You steal it. Thus preventing him carrying out his crime.

I wouldn’t choose that course of action even if it was moral. There are better options.

 

[o_mlly]

So we can determine which part of the moral decision was based on emotion and which on what we individually determine to be the reason based moral rule.

So what this entire thread has been about is moral problems and the part that emotion has to play in them. If you kept emotion out of these moral problems as you suggested (an impossibilty in any case) then there would be no requirement for the last few hundred posts. How emotion affects our decisions on moral matters is the entire raison d’etre of this entire discussion.

Didn’t you realise that? Colour me puzzled.

Fred, it’s black and white. You allow your passions equal time to rule your actions. I subject my passions to my intellect and only allow reason to rule my actions.

Now, when did your passion for your relatives on the track peter out? Fourth cousins? Apparently, your love of neighbor has limits. If by accident of blood, some but not all who relate to you are deserving of your charity. Others, not so much. That’s passionate but not reasonable.

 

[o_mlly]

But the point stands either way. Pre-emptive killing of innocents is SOMETIMES justified, and other times it is not - depending on the circumstances.

Nope. The point in Catholic morality has been defeated. You disagree, so what?

Is there an “absolute” morality which is binding on God …

No dilemma there for Catholics. The dilemma exists for only those mistakenly anthropomorphize God. The Creator is not creature. All His proscribing commandments begin with “Thou shall not”, not “We shall not”. The Author of Life with Whom we have made and broken covenants may take life after covenants are broken. But what has He done?

The Author of life made us temporally immortal and potentially eternal, Adam messed the temporal part up, temporal death entered the world, then the God-man redeemed the potentially eternal in us. Out of Adam’s evil, God has brought an even greater good, eternal life with Them, rather than merely an immortal life in the garden. Wow!

 

[Gorgias]

That wasn’t your point as well you know.

Wow. Thanks for telling me what I’m trying to say. Where would I be without you to let me know what I’m really thinking?!?

You said that killing children was not something that you could defend because ‘one can understand it in the context of the time and culture’.

Not “because” – “although”. Although we can understand the context, we can’t defend it in today’s context.

You seem to be able to say it with a straight face and no qualms.

That’s because I’m saying something different than what you’re spinning it as. It’s not moral. Yet, we can understand where they were coming from. Understand, not approve. That’s why it’s not “relative morality.”

 

[macska]

No. It’s literally the whole point.

In your eyes.

Of course, the deficiencies of your argumentation have been explained to you several times… but it’s clear that you don’t want to understand.

The only perceived “explanation” was something like: “This is not the Catholic understanding”, which shows that you don’t understand the concept of “absolute” and “relative”. These are NOT Catholic concepts.

Your other approach is: “God is different, and we are not allowed to criticize God, only praise him, even if he does not deserve it”. A typical slave mentality.

But what has He done?

Nothing. If you had any evidence for your claims, you could present it.

Your whole attitude reminds me of the trumpist republicans in the Congress. They are presented with the perfect evidence of wrongdoing on Trumps behalf. They are given the option to present their argument - UNDER OATH - and decline to do it. Instead they keep bringing up their debunked theories. The parallel is scary in its precision.

 

[Gorgias]

The only perceived “explanation” was something like: “This is not the Catholic understanding”, which shows that you don’t understand the concept of “ absolute ” and “ relative ”.

HUH? You claimed that Catholic morality accepts genocide in the OT but not now, and therefore is ‘relative morality’. I responded that this is not the case, and therefore, there’s no evidence of ‘relativity.’ Maybe you missed that point?

A typical slave mentality.

If you feel qualified to critique an all-good, all-knowing, all-loving being, then what does that say about your perception of yourself? Ahh… a typical condescending mentality.

 

[o_mlly]

Nothing. If you had any evidence for your claims, you could present it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Your whole attitude reminds me of the trumpist republicans in the Congress. They are presented with the perfect evidence of wrongdoing on Trumps behalf. They are given the option to present their argument - UNDER OATH - and decline to do it. Instead they keep bringing up their debunked theories. The parallel is scary in its precision

Let me know about your perfect evidence that Catholicism has it wrong and you … well, you’ve got nothing.

 

[macska]

HUH? You claimed that Catholic morality accepts genocide in the OT but not now, and therefore is ‘relative morality’. I responded that this is not the case, and therefore, there’s no evidence of ‘relativity.’ Maybe you missed that point?

You responded??? How about some rational argument? If only I would see some rational arguments it would be awesome.

If you feel qualified to critique an all-good, all-knowing, all-loving being, then what does that say about your perception of yourself? Ahh… a typical condescending mentality.

I deny that God (if exists) would be "all-good, all-knowing and all-loving… and this denial is based upon the lack of evidence!!!

The perception of myself is simple. I try to be as good as I can - as long as I don’t have to unduly inconvenience myself. This is honesty. If only God would act in a similar fashion, everything would be fine.

Let me know about your perfect evidence that Catholicism has it wrong and you … well, you’ve got nothing

My evidence is the lack of your evidence. You have no evidence for that afterlife. Mythology is not evidence.

 

[Gorgias]

If only I would see some rational arguments it would be awesome.

I’m beginning to suspect that you only see rational arguments when they come from your own mouth.

This is honesty. If only God would act in a similar fashion, everything would be fine.

“If only God were honest”?!? Seriously? You are honest, and God is not ?!? That’s some pretty serious hubris, my friend…

My evidence is the lack of your evidence.

You realize we can apply that same standard to your arguments, right?

 

[o_mlly]

I try to be as good as I can - as long as I don’t have to unduly inconvenience myself. This is honesty.

One who proclaims their selfishness as if it were a badge of honesty is usually the child and never the good parent.

 

[macska]

I’m beginning to suspect that you only see rational arguments when they come from your own mouth.

Your suspicion is unfounded. You never had any argument, except that “this is not what Catholicism teaches”. And that is insufficient as a “rational argument”.

The words “absolute” and “relative” are NOT Catholic concepts. They are simple, secular ones. Their meaning has been explained to you, absolute means “under any and all circumstances”, while relative means “under some, but not all circumstances”. Based upon your responses you don’t understand these concepts.

“If only God were honest”?!? Seriously? You are honest, and God is not ?!? That’s some pretty serious hubris, my friend…

Again your lack of comprehension is glaringly obvious. No, honesty is to admit that I am only trying to be good as long as it does not inconvenience me. And to admit that I am very far from being perfect. Also, I do not want to be or seem to be perfect. And if only God would act similarly - trying to be good as long as it does not inconvenience him, everything would be just fine.

You simply did not understand what I said. Now, if your response would be: “Fair enough. I misunderstood you” - that would be an intellectually honest response. The trouble is that you like to shoot from the hip, without even understanding the question.

You realize we can apply that same standard to your arguments, right?

If I would claim something positive, yes, it would.

One who proclaims their selfishness as if it were a badge of honesty is usually the child and never the good parent.

Admitting one’s shortcomings is intellectual honesty. You could try it sometimes.

 

[o_mlly]

Admitting one’s shortcomings is intellectual honesty. You could try it sometimes.

You miss the point. One can honestly confess imperfection and simultaneously profess an ongoing aim for perfection. It’s quite another thing to boast about one’s imperfection and simultaneously profess that one ought to be OK with that imperfection. The former knows what perfection requires and strives for it; the latter neither knows nor cares.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So we can determine which part of the moral decision was based on emotion and which on what we individually determine to be the reason based moral rule.

So what this entire thread has been about is moral problems and the part that emotion has to play in them. If you kept emotion out of these moral problems as you suggested (an impossibilty in any case) then there would be no requirement for the last few hundred posts. How emotion affects our decisions on moral matters is the entire raison d’etre of this entire discussion.

Didn’t you realise that? Colour me puzzled.

Fred, it’s black and white. You allow your passions equal time to rule your actions. I subject my passions to my intellect and only allow reason to rule my actions.

So your mother is on the track and with Borg-like intensity you run the code, and unemotionally let reason dictate…to allow her to survive and the five to die. Uh? No, that can’t be right. Reason would dictate that 5 lives saved is the more reasonable option.

Ah, hang on. It’s not reason itself that you were applying. That Borg-like decision making that those pesky utilitarianists would apply cannot be the same decision making that you applied. Because we get different answers.

I think what you were applying was a rigid moral code as taught by the Catholic church. You don’t have to make a decision. It’s already been made for you. You don’t have to make a choice. You just apply the rules.

If you cannot do anything except follow a specific moral rule then there is no quest for a reasonable answer. There is no internal debate. I can imagine you in the intro class to a psychology degree.

‘OK, We’ve had the answers to the first trolley problem. Now let’s change some of the parameters and see…’
‘Same answer!’
‘Yes, hang on o-mlly, I haven’t given you the new…’
‘Same answer!’
‘But you can’t decide until you’ve actually heard…’
‘Same answer!’

It never changes. It’s an automatic response.

‘But the scenario was the entire universe versus a terminally ill mass murderer who will die anyway in an hour’.
‘Same answer!’

 

[Freddy]

That’s because I’m saying something different than what you’re spinning it as. It’s not moral. Yet, we can understand where they were coming from. Understand, not approve. That’s why it’s not “relative morality.”

Yeah. Massacring children in biblical times is totally understandable. We just have to consider it in relation to the times in which it ocurred. People thought it was ok back then. Obviously we don’t now.

What was acceptable then and what we find acceptable now is completely different. I mean, who could argue with that.

 

[EndTimes]

boys! BOYS! … No fighting!

Jesus is the Messiah of all…

Follow Him and be Guided by God’s Holy Spirit!

 

[EndTimes]

I am just trying to understand how you see it differently. Two scenarios:
3300 people will die unless you kill 300 of them first. So it’s good to kill them.
3300 people will die unless you kill 3000 of them first. It’s good to kill them ? If not, why?

You got it!

Numbers Shmumbers…
Most of the world believed the Earth is flat
Numbers Shmumbers…

Thou Shalt Not Kill !

 

[Annie]

How about some rational argument? If only I would see some rational arguments it would be awesome.

Massacring children in biblical times is totally understandable.

Massacring children under the orders of God in biblical times is totally moral.

I think the point being missed here is under the orders of God, and this works for at least 3 reasons.

First, God is the ultimate authority.

Consider this: if Joe grabs Sally, speaks to her, puts handcuffs on her, and takes her back to his workplace and locks her in a closet, he’d be up for kidnapping and a few other things.

But, if Joe were a police officer and arresting Sally “in the name of the law,” there would be no problem.

That is because when a person acts under authority, what he does is viewed differently.

Second, God could order this because He can see into the hearts of the people and see into the future. Therefore, He could apply justice in a way that we can not.

Third, God created those people.

If Sally went into Joe’s pottery studio and deliberately smashed a piece of pottery, Joe would rightfully be upset with her.

If Joe told Sally to smash the piece, they would both be fine.

So we can see that God’s position in this situation is very different from that of any human being.

 

[macska]

Massacring children under the orders of God in biblical times is totally moral.

This is the point when any attempt to conduct a rational conversation becomes totally futile.

 

[Annie]

The problem is that your definition of rational differs from our definition of rational.