Were does morality come from?

[Betterave]

It has been my contention that reason alone is insufficient for discerning all moral laws nor do I believe the Church teaches otherwise. What she teaches is that reason and faith must work together, reason alone is inadequate. If you believe otherwise then cite something the Church has said that supports your position. Here are some comments from Fides et Ratio that support mine:

…or so you believe! (I believe they support my position.)
(Could you include paragraph numbers next time? It makes referencing this stuff much easier!)

1. Seen in this light, reason is valued without being overvalued. The results of reasoning may in fact be true, but these results acquire their true meaning only if they are set within the larger horizon of faith: “All man’s steps are ordered by the Lord: how then can man understand his own ways?” (Prov 20:24). For the Old Testament, then, faith liberates reason in so far as it allows reason to attain correctly what it seeks to know and to place it within the ultimate order of things, in which everything acquires true meaning. * In brief, human beings attain truth by way of reason because, enlightened by faith, they discover the deeper meaning of all things and most especially of their own existence.*
2. According to the Apostle, it was part of the original plan of the creation that reason should without difficulty reach beyond the sensory data to the origin of all things: the Creator. But because of the disobedience by which man and woman chose to set themselves in full and absolute autonomy in relation to the One who had created them, this ready * access to God the Creator diminished *not *“was destroyed”].

This is the human condition vividly described by the Book of Genesis when it tells us that God placed the human being in the Garden of Eden, in the middle of which there stood “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (2:17).** The symbol is clear: man was in no position to discern **and decide for himself what was good and what was evil, but was constrained to appeal to a higher source in accordance with its own nature, appeals to a higher source than merely its own intellective appetite (i.e., will)]

1. The search for truth, of course, is not always so transparent nor does it always produce such results. The natural limitation of reason and the inconstancy of the heart often obscure and distort a person’s search. Truth can also drown in a welter of other concerns. People can even run from the truth as soon as they glimpse it because they are afraid of its demands.
2. The fundamental harmony between the knowledge of faith and the knowledge of philosophy is once again confirmed. Faith asks that its object be understood with the help of reason; and at the summit of its searching reason acknowledges that it cannot do without what faith presents.
3. In brief, there are signs of a widespread distrust of universal and absolute statements, especially among those who think that truth is born of consensus and not of a consonance between intellect and objective reality. In a world subdivided into so many specialized fields, it is not hard to see how difficult it can be to acknowledge the full and ultimate meaning of life which has traditionally been the goal of philosophy. Nonetheless, in the light of faith which finds in Jesus Christ this ultimate meaning, I cannot but encourage philosophers—be they Christian or not—to trust in the power of human reason and not to set themselves goals that are too modest in their philosophizing. The lesson of history in this millennium now drawing to a close shows that this is the path to follow: it is necessary not to abandon the passion for ultimate truth, the eagerness to search for it or the audacity to forge new paths in the search. It is faith which stirs reason to move beyond all isolation and willingly to run risks so that it may attain whatever is beautiful, good and true. Faith thus becomes the convinced and convincing advocate of reason.

[Could it be any clearer, Ender?]*

 

[Abu]

**The Problem **

Thanks for your great contribution, Betterave.

The problem lies with one seemingly mesmerized by a “position” – “that reason alone is insufficient for discerning all moral laws.” This has led to unnecessarily confusing some who need to know that reason can know what is right from wrong.

By proposing several defective objections in specific areas this has callously muddled reason in the process. An unreasonably proposed “total acceptance” of the Church’s “position” as the “only logical approach” against “if there are things you need to reason out” – has led to the perverse conclusion that “it shouldn’t be surprising that others don’t accept it either” (the Church’s “position”). This leads to the conclusion that “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.”(See post #161, 213)

The defective objections were:

1. “God’s existence cannot be proven” (#146)
2. ”if there are things you need to reason out it can only be because you don’t accept “the Church knows” as sufficient … so it shouldn’t be surprising that others don’t accept it either. (# 161)
3. “can we say we can know the truth of moral behavior if it cannot be proven?” (#195)
4. “if discernment is simply a rational conclusion then what we believe today can easily change tomorrow….over the last few decades in the mainline Protestant churches….Reason seems quite divided on the question of homosexuality. (#212). [Note: Buddhism believes in a changing morality].
5. “If being rational is sufficient then the Church is superfluous….On the contrary, they [Protestants] have been quite rational and, having relied too heavily on rationality, they are coming to recognize its shortcomings…” [See # 214].
6. “reasonable people may disagree over issues of morality” [See #227]
7. “I raised divorced as an example. It seems that it took a direct statement from Christ himself for us to get this one right; I don’t see where man figured this out on his own.” [See # 231].

Each of these red herrings has been adequately disposed of. Defective objection 2) (in #161) is a slap in the face for ecumenism, and also for progress with non-Christians, as in *Fides et Ratio *(#104) we read that “Philosophical thought is often the only ground for understanding and dialogue with those who do not share our faith…. Reflecting in the light of reason and in keeping with its rules, and guided always by the deeper understanding given them by the word of God, Christian philosophers can develop a reflection which will be both comprehensible and appealing to those who do not yet grasp the full truth which divine Revelation declares.”

If the absurdity that “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” (See post #213) has now been contradicted by an awareness “that reason and faith must work together,” (See post #233), that is welcome.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

I think what is being disputed here is whether or not all moral truths can be discerned through reason alone.

quote=Betterave But that position is not consistent with Church teaching.
(2) Well certainly reason alone is not sufficient! That’s not my point at all and the Church certainly doesn’t teach that.

[/quote]

Reason alone either is or is not sufficient to determine all moral truth and you have answered both ways. I’m going to assume that the latter answer is the one you’re going with … so now we are agreed.

The point is that morality is the proper object of natural reason, unaided by divine faith, i.e., divine faith is not necessary. This certainly doesn’t imply that reason alone is sufficient, as if human reason operated purely autonomously - it obviously does not!

So, if reason alone is insufficient and faith is not required, what is it that is necessary to reach sufficiency? What’s missing?

Ender

 

[Betterave]

Reason alone either is or is not sufficient to determine all moral truth and you have answered both ways. I’m going to assume that the latter answer is the one you’re going with … so now we are agreed.

I have been contesting your claim that natural reason must be assisted by divine faith, which is mediated to us by the magisterium of the Church. Relatively speaking, reason is sufficient. When you start talking about ‘reason alone’ this suggests much more. It’s analogous to the case of the ‘material sufficiency’ of scriptures, although we reject the notion that ‘scripture alone’ is adequate for establishing the rule of faith, that scripture is ‘formally sufficient’ (although the cases are not exactly the same; the claims made for ‘reason alone’ (i.e., without special guidance from an external authority) are stronger than those made for scripture alone, as we see in Fides et ratio <56>, above).

For the material/formal sufficiency distinction, cf.: catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

So, if reason alone is insufficient and faith is not required, what is it that is necessary to reach sufficiency? What’s missing?

Here’s a rough list: perseverance, favorable cultural conditions (luck), good will, a generous native endowment of intellectual powers, open-mindedness, experience, time, freedom from distractions/constraints… (You might want to think about the parable of the sower, as an analogy.)

 

[StrawberryJam]

I can not argue againt Betterave’s points.

They seem reasonable enough.

 

[wbarquez]

What is good would be relative without God.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

So, if reason alone is insufficient and faith is not required, what is it that is necessary to reach sufficiency? What’s missing?

Here’s a rough list: perseverance, favorable cultural conditions (luck), good will, a generous native endowment of intellectual powers, open-mindedness, experience, time, freedom from distractions/constraints

All of these attributes simply contribute to the effectiveness of reason; you are still left with reason alone. If, as you claim, reason is sufficient then we should have some examples to draw from. Although there have been any number of great philosophers isn’t it a problem that they have come up with different understandings of morality? If reason really is sufficient then why haven’t they come to the same conclusions? Which one got it right - Aristotle, Socrates, Aquinas, Kant, Nietzsche (or any of the dozens more I’m sure you could name)?

Ender

 

[headsmith]

Morality comes in two forms, authoritative and consequential. Authoritative morality is consequential morality reinforced by an appeal to divine authority. All religions and sects promote their rules by invoking divine authority. It gives the rules punch when elders have forgotten and cannot adequately explain the natural reasons for them.

Consequential morality is the set of maxims of behavior that long-term trial and error have taught human society in order to maintain the survival of each social system, such as Moses’ Ten Commandments. He could see that he needed some rules to coordinate social roles and avoid social chaos. Other societies do the same, each with much the same rules because they are all derived from our common human nature and its confrontation with physical nature.

Both kinds are “divine” in the sense that God is the author, through evolution, of our human nature, and it requires certain minimum behaviors to meet our greatest, universal imperative, individual and collective species survival.

 

[Ender]

Consequential morality is the set of maxims of behavior that long-term trial and error have taught human society in order to maintain the survival of each social system,

Is there any way to say that the maxims of behavior one society develops are more moral than those of any other society? It would seem not as maxims are really judged to be effective or ineffective rather than “good” or “bad”. That is, the maxims of the Shakers would have to be judged (by your standards) as immoral as they failed while the maxims of the Aztecs would be moral as they succeeded in producing a very stable civilization. Does this suggest we should more highly value the ritual slaughter of ones neighbors over living in peace with them?

Ender

 

[Betterave]

All of these attributes simply contribute to the effectiveness of reason; you are still left with reason alone. If, as you claim, reason is sufficient then we should have some examples to draw from. Although there have been any number of great philosophers isn’t it a problem that they have come up with different understandings of morality? If reason really is sufficient then why haven’t they come to the same conclusions? Which one got it right - Aristotle, Socrates, Aquinas, Kant, Nietzsche (or any of the dozens more I’m sure you could name)?

Ender

At the risk of giving an overly simplistic answer, they all contributed to getting it right; at least they all have something to contribute to the ongoing project, in an ever-changing world, of getting it right. The answer as to why different thinkers offer different answers, is the one I already gave: all of the attributes that contribute to reason are intrinsic to the functioning of reason, and all of these attributes have diverse manifestations in the thought of various thinkers. You’re right that reason is alone if you allow that it intrinsically includes a relation to others, but the word ‘alone’ in this context seems potentially misleading. Reason always operates under particular conditions, but it always grasps the particularity of reality under universal categories, i.e., reason is conditioned and particular, but it naturally reaches out for what is unconditioned and universal (a.k.a. the mind of God).

 

[PJM]

=schulze43;6304745]One of my friends was in her ethics philosophy class yesterday and said that her teacher was talking about how there is a moral code that is “above” God and that God Himself follows. Then the teacher said that this is what the Catholic Church teaches…can anyone explain this philosophy to me and what does the Church actually teach about were morality comes from?? thanks for any help

God tells us the He writes the Moral Lw; what is good and what is evil on our hearts and these truth can and ough to be known by everyone.

God is the source of all Good, thus God is the author of wht is morally right and morally wrong.

I have not heard of the position the teacher put forth but what is right is RIGHT and what is wrong is WRONG, and this is determined by What God Judges them to be.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Apologies for a belated reply! The societies which have deduced the correct moral laws are those in which their members live in peace and harmony while being free to choose what to believe, how to live and to express themselves as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. By their fruits you shall know them…

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.

That is true. Moral truths are determined by the immense value of being a person with free will and the capacity for love and happiness.

 

[Ender]

The societies which have deduced the correct moral laws are those in which their members live in peace and harmony while being free to choose what to believe, how to live and to express themselves as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. By their fruits you shall know them…

OK, I’ll buy this

Moral truths are determined by the immense value of being a person with free will and the capacity for love and happiness.

I don’t dispute this … but how do you know (by reason alone) that every person is of immense value? I keep pushing on this point because I don’t believe reason - while it is absolutely necessary - is sufficient

Ender

 

[StrawberryJam]

OK, I’ll buy this
I don’t dispute this … but how do you know (by reason alone) that every person is of immense value? I keep pushing on this point because I don’t believe reason - while it is absolutely necessary - is sufficient

Ender

Hello Dear Ender,

If you dont know that every person is of immense value, then how do you support the view that life is valuable from conception?

An honest question from a pro life agnostic

 

[Ender]

If you dont know that every person is of immense value, then how do you support the view that life is valuable from conception?

I asked the question not because I doubt the value of human life but to expose what I see as a flaw in the argument that reason alone is sufficient to determine all moral laws. In fact, I think reason would come to the position that all life is not valuable; it is certainly difficult to see any value in the old and the dying, the seriously handicapped, or the drunk in the gutter. It is quite reasonable to assert that society is better off without them.

An honest question from a pro life agnostic

As an agnostic, why do you think every person is of immense value? On what logical argument do you base that conclusion?

Ender

 

[Abu]

Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton),2001, p 169). St Paul refers to a law “written on the heart” which informs the consciences of even the Gentiles who do not have the revealed law of Moses to guide them. (Rom 2:14-15).

The human embryo is a living human being, a distinct, self-integrating organism internally directing its own growth and already possessing the active capacity to develop itself to further stages of maturity of its own kind retaining intact its distinctiveness and identity, as its DNA shows — the same DNA sequence that he or she will have in every cell of his or her fully developed body — this is what science has confirmed. This development is from the embryo to the foetus, infant, child and adolescent. You or I are the same being that was once an adolescent, and before that a toddler, an infant, a foetus and an embryo. To have destroyed the being at any of these stages would have destroyed you or me.

We, as conscious and desiring agents, do not “have” organisms that we possess and use; we are rational organisms. The persons we are come into being precisely as and when the organisms we are come into being. We are essentially human, physical organisms — not some mere consciousness living in and using a human body — so all human beings are “persons” whose rights deserve respect and protection: embryonic human beings, retarded human beings, frail, deranged and dying human beings.
[See Princeton Professor Robert P George’s *The Clash of Orthodoxies, ISI Books, 2001].

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.
St Paul knew what he was talking about.

 

[Ender]

Why is the rejection of murder found in all societies, East and West, non-Christian and Christian?

Murder is not rejected in all societies. A society will punish the murder of someone within that society but often not only permits but applauds the murder of someone outside that society. (See: suicide bombers, Hatfields and McCoys, …)

Ender

 

[grannymh]

Morality is the application of this basic truth – The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Abu]

Ender
Murder is not rejected in all societies. A society will punish the murder of someone within that society but often not only permits but applauds the murder of someone outside that society. (See: suicide bombers, Hatfields and McCoys, …)

Yet another defective objection. Without obfuscation, C. S. Lewis, as normal people do, refers to the people of a region or country. I thought that we all new that there are murderers everywhere and that they are punished when caught in every country.

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.
St Paul knew what he was talking about.

 

[Ender]

Yet another defective objection. Without obfuscation, C. S. Lewis, as normal people do, refers to the people of a region or country. I thought that we all new that there are murderers everywhere and that they are punished when caught in every country.

Well, my point was that murderers are not always punished, that in some cases they were (and still are) esteemed and rewarded. It depends entirely on who they murder. For example, if a member of Hamas murders an Israeli he will be punished if the Israeli’s catch him but Hamas surely won’t punish him and may well reward him for his actions. So it is not true that all societies condemn murder; many have allowed it so long as the person being murdered wasn’t a member of their particular society.

Ender