Were does morality come from?

[Abu]

Ender
You obviously don’t appreciate what the natural law and conscience are about when so many sensible Catholics, and others can, and do. Keep trying. I merely offer you truth, but not as my opinions. Why would anyone consider murder to be in accord with reason? Why is the rejection of murder found in all societies, East and West, non -Christian and Christian?

“As C. S. Lewis noted in his Abolition of Man, the moral commands to honor parents, not murder, not lie, not steal, and so on, are found everywhere. They are found everywhere because they arise from human nature. To ignore them, or manipulate them, can only result in the destruction of human nature, the Abolition of Man.”

See posts # 195, 193, 167, 160 (Pope Pius XII), 150, 141, 138, 135.

 

[Ender]

You obviously don’t appreciate what the natural law and conscience are about when so many sensible Catholics, and others can, and do. Keep trying. I merely offer you truth, but not as my opinions. Why would anyone consider murder to be in accord with reason?

Let me be clear about the point I’m making. We can believe that murder is immoral but we cannot logically prove it (which you can demonstrate for yourself by trying to) and it only makes sense to believe it is immoral if one also believes in God. I am not suggesting that murder isn’t immoral. We’ve actually taken a few steps backward in this discussion when we got tangled up debating what it meant to “know” a moral truth.

If moral truths objectively exist then their source must be God. If God did not exist then neither could morality. In addition to being the source of moral law, however, God must have made those laws knowable to man, otherwise they might as well not exist. How was that done? I agree that this is where man’s rational nature and the existence of the conscience come in but while they are necessary they are not sufficient.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

Yes, since what I asked several pages ago was whether it was proper to say one could know something if one could not prove it, that is exactly what I meant. JPII talks about the two senses of “knowing” in Fides et Ratio:

"This obliged the Council to reaffirm emphatically that there exists a knowledge which is peculiar to faith, surpassing the knowledge proper to human reason"

I think that’s fairly clear: there is knowledge that comes from reason and knowledge that comes from faith; I was using the term in the former sense and the Church uses it in the latter sense.

You are obviously very much mistaken here: the Church uses the term in both senses.

The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”.

Nota bene: ‘murder is morally wrong’ is not, according to the Church, a “mystery hidden in God,” proposed for our belief following upon a divine revelation!..

This has always been the Church’s position: we can know through faith by accepting revealed truth with no expectation that those truths could be proven.

“From this time on, I gave my preference to the Catholic faith. I thought it more modest and not in the least misleading to be told by the Church to believe what could not be demonstrated…" (Augustine)

All of this brings us back to the point of my question: can we say we can know know the truth of moral behavior if it cannot be proven? For Catholics the answer may be yes but for others, especially atheists or skeptics, I think the answer must be no.

…therefore **this (above) **is incorrect!

 

[Caritasregat]

Yes, that would be very helpful.
If you believe that we can logically know what actions are moral and which are immoral then explain why murder is always immoral. I suspect that rational explanations for morality are as not compelling as you think they are.

Ender

Well, if you’re Immanuel Kant, you could say that rationality is the only means of discerning morality. But if you’re Aristotle, you would hold that murder (the unjust killing of another human being) is contrary to the virtue of justice, which makes it all the more harder to become a good and happy person. If you’re John Stuart Mill, you would say that right and wrong is determined by consequences. If you’re Nietzsche, I guess as long as you get away with it, you’re good.

Everyone has some rational basis on which to support claims of morality. Which one do you not like?

 

[Caritasregat]

Let me be clear about the point I’m making. We can believe that murder is immoral but we cannot logically prove it (which you can demonstrate for yourself by trying to) and it only makes sense to believe it is immoral if one also believes in God. I am not suggesting that murder isn’t immoral. We’ve actually taken a few steps backward in this discussion when we got tangled up debating what it meant to “know” a moral truth.

If moral truths objectively exist then their source must be God. If God did not exist then neither could morality. In addition to being the source of moral law, however, God must have made those laws knowable to man, otherwise they might as well not exist. How was that done? I agree that this is where man’s rational nature and the existence of the conscience come in but while they are necessary they are not sufficient.

Ender

I agree that there is no objective morality w/o God. But not all morality necessarily: Society would just be more dependent on what works; i.e. law and family values. The government isn’t enough to make people behave, so each family would have to ensure people behave as well. Actually, without God, it would probably be quite like Republican Rome, which of course was doomed to sink into corruption and fall at the hands of illiterate tribesmen.

 

[Ender]

Well, if you’re Immanuel Kant, …

Everyone has some rational basis on which to support claims of morality. Which one do you not like?

I don’t want to start over again so the one I like is the one we’ve been working on. We had gotten to the point where there was acceptance of the fact that the only possible source of objectively true moral values was God. So, if you’re Immanuel Kant you’re out of luck as far as this discussion goes. Well, mostly, we also agreed that those moral laws had to be discoverable so there is surely a place for rationality. So, is rationality and the existence of the conscience sufficient for us to confidently claim we have figured out what those laws are? I’m thinking… not yet.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I agree that there is no objective morality w/o God. But not all morality necessarily: Society would just be more dependent on what works; i.e. law and family values.

I’m not sure what point you’re making here; do you want to expand on this?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Ender:

can we say we can know know the truth of moral behavior if it cannot be proven? For Catholics the answer may be yes but for others, especially atheists or skeptics, I think the answer must be no

.
…therefore **this (above) **is incorrect!

If, as we have agreed, the existence of morality depends on the existence of God, how can an atheist properly claim to know the moral nature of any action if he rejects the very basis of all morality? From his perspective he may present a rational defense of his position but from our perspective he has no possible way of knowing that his conclusions are valid because the premise on which they are based is in error.

Ender

 

[tonyrey]

So, is rationality and the existence of the conscience sufficient for us to confidently claim we have figured out what those laws are?

If conscience is the ability to distinguish between what is right and wrong we should be able to deduce the principles of morality and moral laws. For example, if our conscience tells us that it is wrong to kill a person we can conclude that it is generally wrong to kill anyone and that everyone has a right to life. We can also conclude that life is immensely valuable (in the unlikely event that we did not realise that it is) and that we are all equal in that respect.

 

[Betterave]

If, as we have agreed, the existence of morality depends on the existence of God, how can an atheist properly claim to know the moral nature of any action if he rejects the very basis of all morality? From his perspective he may present a rational defense of his position but from our perspective he has no possible way of knowing that his conclusions are valid because the premise on which they are based is in error.

Ender

Are you familiar with the distinction between ratio essendi and ratio cognoscendi (reason for being vs. reason for knowing)? We agree, as Catholics, that the ratio essendi of human morality (as well as the ‘reason of being’ of all of creation) is God as creator. But that doesn’t imply that the ratio cognoscendi of morality, our way of knowing about it, must be grounded in knowledge of its ratio essendi (i.e., insofar as this is God - and this is where we must allow that God is not the sole ratio essendi: we believe that God creates natures and gives to them their own principles of operation, such that there is not only one order of causality; rather, both Kant and Aristotle point to genuine sources of the being of morality that do come ultimately from God, as from their first cause, but which at the same time exercise their own proper mode of being and operation, concurrently with God’s necessary contribution as creator and ‘first cause’). And indeed, we might come to know the truth about morality before coming to know about God as the ground of its existence.

 

[Abu]

Betterave
we might come to know the truth about morality before coming to know about God as the ground of its existence.

That is actually so, since all societies agree on condemning murder, stealing etc. – as well as the fact that most atheists do not support murder, stealing etc. Where they fail is in neglecting the fact of reason which, for instance, shows that the fetus is human, and abortion therefore is murder. But, then they also neglect the facts of God’s existence known from reason alone.

I guess it makes for a DIY morality – selfist.

 

[Ender]

If conscience is the ability to distinguish between what is right and wrong we should be able to deduce the principles of morality and moral laws.

To some degree that is true but clearly that is not true for all moral questions: various, disparate societies have some moral values in common but also have some that are not shared. How are we to tell which societies have deduced the correct moral laws and which have not?

For example, if our conscience tells us that it is wrong to kill a person we can conclude that it is generally wrong to kill anyone and that everyone has a right to life.

For a lot of people, killing a person is wrong, but the Church teaches that this is not universally true. We also accept that it is not the conscience that defines right and wrong; the fact that our conscience tells us something is wrong doesn’t make it so. The conscience is not the arbiter of moral values; it does not define them. The conscience alone is insufficient to determine moral truths.

Ender

 

[Ender]

And indeed, we might come to know the truth about morality before coming to know about God as the ground of its existence.

Yes, I accept this. Neither knowledge of nor belief in God is required for someone to discern moral truth. However … if discernment is simply a rational conclusion then what we believe today can easily change tomorrow. One only needs to look at the changes that have taken place over the last few decades in the mainline Protestant churches to see rather significant examples of this. Let’s just say that I am skeptical about any claims they may make about their ability to know moral truth when they see it - and about the possibility of discerning those truths solely through rational means.

Ender

 

[Abu]

We have shown conclusively that reason can and does discover the natural moral law.

It is also clear that if this does not occur it is often due to individual failure to apply and accept the dictates of reason because of inclinations to avoid the consquences of the dictates of conscience.

 

[Ender]

We have shown conclusively that reason can and does discover the natural moral law.

Reason seems quite divided on the question of homosexuality. On what basis can you claim that your position is more reasonable than the opposing position? How is the correct position to be conclusively determined when reasonable people disagree?

Ender

 

[Abu]

Ender
…if discernment is simply a rational conclusion then what we believe today can easily change tomorrow. One only needs to look at the changes that have taken place over the last few decades in the mainline Protestant churches to see rather significant examples of this. Let’s just say that I am skeptical about any claims they may make about their ability to know moral truth when they see it - and about the possibility of discerning those truths solely through rational means.

Reason seems quite divided on the question of homosexuality. On what basis can you claim that your position is more reasonable than the opposing position? How is the correct position to be conclusively determined when reasonable people disagree?

The fallacy lies in feeling that “a rational conclusion” can be anything one chooses – “then what we believe today can easily change tomorrow.” The “mainline Protestant churches” have seldom been rational. So why should we expect that? As well as failing to comprehend the irrationality of contraception, and having rejected Christ’s authority through His Church, they make up their own morality – falling prey to this evil (Lambeth Conference 1930).

“Reason” is not divided on the disorder of homosexuality, and the assumption of “reasonable people” disagreeing is anything but reasonable. Homosexuality is a disorder. For the same reason that contraception is unnatural, the practice of homosexuality is unnatural – they both are a lie, perverting the end of sexuality between male and female for unity and procreation in a stable family

Msgr John F McCarthy further enlightens on this problem:
[See #LT 15, Msgr McCarthy on the new morality].
rtforum.org/lt/lt15.html#II
“Heideggerian existentialism cuts the subject off from direct contact with objectivity - interposing as his comprehensive intermediary the image of the subjective self. Not only the concept of the state of matrimony but all objective formulation of law and of truth becomes only remotely related to the knowing subject – who is thus alienated from the pattern of objective reality. For the Heideggerian existentialist the only prime reality is the human subject experiencing his own self.

“Awareness of reality tells us that uncontrolled, irrational sexual indulgence is sinful. Precisely because sexual desires are not an isolated psychological phenomenon, but are tied in with the whole pattern of human response, they must not be allowed to take control of the person. Sexuality is a part of human self-expression, but the human self knows himself as a subject facing a larger world of objective reality, and that reality, spiritual as well as material, must constantly play a role in the self-expression of the individual. The ‘new morality’ falsely imagines that human activity wells up from within the subjectivity of the person apart from any vital connection with the objectivity of his mind.”

I repeat: Even Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., explained: “The greatest contribution of medievalism to the scientific movement [was] the inexpugnable belief that …there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?..It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.” [E.L. Jones, 1987; in *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 15; my emphasis].

There is no basis for denying that we are rational human beings, and the same reason that discovered sound morality, discovered sound science.

 

[Ender]

The “mainline Protestant churches” have seldom been rational.

On the contrary, they have been quite rational and, having relied too heavily on rationality, they are coming to recognize its shortcomings.

having rejected Christ’s authority through His Church, they make up their own morality – falling prey to this evil

If rational thought is sufficient to discover moral law then why do we need the Church to explain it to us? If being rational is sufficient then the Church is superfluous. Either we need the Church to interpret moral law for us or we can do it ourselves via our own reason, but you can’t claim that both are true.

“Reason” is not divided on the disorder of homosexuality, and the assumption of “reasonable people” disagreeing is anything but reasonable.

Apparently it is reason only when the one using it comes up with the right answer, otherwise it is only “reason”, but you can say this only because you believe you know what conclusion reason is supposed to reach. That is, you claim to know the truth of this question because it is what the Church teaches and you believe that the Church teaches the truth.

There is no basis for denying that we are rational human beings, and the same reason that discovered sound morality, discovered sound science.

I have never denied that we were rational creatures nor that we were incapable of discovering moral truths. What I suspect is that reason is necessary but insufficient, not just for the discovery of all moral truths but, more significantly, for believing that we should order our lives by those laws.

Ender

 

[Abu]

Ender
On the contrary, they have been quite rational and, having relied too heavily on rationality, they are coming to recognize its shortcomings.

You have failed to give facts to show that Protestant churches “have been quite rational”, yet you repeat the error; you’ve failed to accept the irrationality of their mood swing to contraception which is against the ends of marriage.

If rational thought is sufficient to discover moral law then why do we need the Church to explain it to us? If being rational is sufficient then the Church is superfluous. Either we need the Church to interpret moral law for us or we can do it ourselves via our own reason, but you can’t claim that both are true.

This further uncovers your dilemma. I “claim” nothing. Why on earth do you think Christ’s Church affirms the natural moral law based on reason? But it’s time assent was given to the teaching of John Paul II and Vatican I, which once again asserts BOTH types of knowledge – reason and divine Revelation.
From Fides et Ratio, John Paul II, 1998:
(#9) “The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: ‘There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known’.” [My emphasis].

The effects of Original Sin do not eliminate reasoning to a knowledge of good and evil, it makes it more difficult. No wonder there is so much confusion over morals if little effort is put into knowing right from wrong and living it.

“Hence the more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by the objective standards of moral conduct. Yet it often happens that conscience goes astray through ignorance which it is unable to avoid, without thereby losing his dignity. This cannot be said of the man who takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded by the habit of committing sin.” *Gaudium et Spes *(The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), 16].

On homosexuality you descend to:

you claim to know the truth of this question because it is what the Church teaches and you believe that the Church teaches the truth.

I “claim” nothing. You choose to ignore the truth of knowledge from the Natural Law: Homosexual activity “lacks those very elements which could make it a natural sign of the union of persons. This is why the most that can be achieved in a homosexual act is mutual masturbation.” (Michael Palachuk, *Why Is Homosexual Activity Morally Wrong? *Referenced in The Truth About Homosexuality, Section: The Argument from Natural Law, Fr John A Harvey, Ignatius 199, p 133-4).

How come? The twin unity of love and procreation are absent. Oral or anal intercourse remains on the surface of the body, and cannot result in a child.

 

[Ender]

You aren’t following my argument closely; my comments are not what you think they are.

You have failed to give facts to show that Protestant churches “have been quite rational”, yet you repeat the error; you’ve failed to accept the irrationality of their mood swing to contraception which is against the ends of marriage.

Actually, I think their swing from opposing contraception and homosexuality to supporting them is the result of rational thinking. I’ll also point out, however, that merely because ones approach is rational and logical doesn’t mean it will lead to the right answer; I think you are confused on that point. My logic may be perfect but if a premise is incorrect then my answer, even though logical, is likely to be wrong.

Why on earth do you think Christ’s Church affirms the natural moral law based on reason? But it’s time assent was given to the teaching of John Paul II and Vatican I, which once again asserts BOTH types of knowledge – reason and divine Revelation.

Yes, both types of knowledge are required … so how does that conflict with what I just said:* “What I suspect is that reason is necessary but insufficient*”?

(#9) “The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: ‘There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known’.”

This is a wonderful quote and is exactly the point I have been making: both reason and revelation are required. This was the reason I said earlier that the atheist - who by definition rejects both the existence and necessity of revelation - cannot claim to know moral truth. What he believes to be moral may be (and in most cases probably is) true but he cannot know it to be true just as we cannot know it is true except via the second order of knowledge: by divine faith.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

Yes, I accept this. Neither knowledge of nor belief in God is required for someone to discern moral truth. However … if discernment is simply a rational conclusion then what we believe today can easily change tomorrow. One only needs to look at the changes that have taken place over the last few decades in the mainline Protestant churches to see rather significant examples of this. Let’s just say that I am skeptical about any claims they may make about their ability to know moral truth when they see it - and about the possibility of discerning those truths solely through rational means.

Good! We agree on this (above)… But then you write:

Quote:
(#9) “The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: ‘There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known’.”

This is a wonderful quote and is exactly the point I have been making: both reason and revelation are required. This was the reason I said earlier that the atheist - who by definition rejects both the existence and necessity of revelation - cannot claim to know moral truth. What he believes to be moral may be (and in most cases probably is) true but he cannot know it to be true just as we cannot know it is true except via the second order of knowledge: by divine faith.

Aren’t you contradicting yourself?

Also: your claim above is not an accurate assessment of the passage quoted. The passage states that natural reason and divine faith are distinct and have distinct objects. It does not say that they operate on the same object, so as to produce certain knowledge about the same object.

Note also: if you want to introduce epistemic difficulties (which, yes, do exist) in regard to “natural reason,” you should recognize that similar difficulties arise with respect to “divine faith.” (Talk to a Mormon/Muslim/evangelical some time if you don’t know what I mean.)