G
grannymh
Guest
The universal truth is – The human person is worthy of profound respect.
Murder is an attack on this truth. The truth remains regardless if the attack is punished or praised.
- Status
Murder is an attack on this truth. The truth remains regardless if the attack is punished or praised.
A
Abu
Guest
Precisely – you obfuscate once again, because Hamas is a terrorist ORGANISATION, NOT a society in the meaning of the people of a region or country which has existed for ages. It is significant that the Palestinian society not under Hamas doesn’t preach the same. You have tried repeatedly to twist apologists (like C S Lewis) as well as papal teaching to indulge your fantasies. You have indulged yourself in multitudinous defective objections as summarised in post #238. No sane person would try to intrude an organization formed to include the purpose of murder to achieve its ends as the meaning of which C S Lewis spoke. All of your defective objections abandon reason based on the natural moral law – reminiscent of Martin Luther who became an enemy of reason abandoning the tradition of natural law.
B
Betterave
Guest
Ender,
Do you think Hamas promotes this kind of thing as the result of their extended conscientious pursuit of the principles of morality that accord with natural reason? Isn’t it more likely the result of abandoning the guidance of natural reason and accepting ‘faith-based’ rationalizations?
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t disagree with this; you misconstrue my comments.
Well, if you don’t like Hamas as an example we can use a different one; there are lots of possibilities: the Aztecs, many Indian tribes (Sioux, Apache, Comanche), … in fact if you look back through history you will find innumerable examples of societies who applied laws to themselves - such as prohibitions against murder - that they most surely did not apply to those outside of their societies. If you think about other immoral actions such as slavery you have to acknowledge that pretty much every society indulged in it before the 1700s. What is more reasonable to conclude: that reason didn’t develop until the 1700s or that reason was unable to recognize slavery as immoral?
I couldn’t say - but that seems to be a pretty fine point. It does, however, go to the question of how we can distinguish between natural reason and rationalization. I’m certainly willing to believe that people will find some rationale to excuse their behavior, I’m much less sure that there is any strictly logical way to know when one has reached “the” correct position.
Ender
B
Betterave
Guest
I think you’re right insofar as “the way” of natural reason is certainly *not *reducible to what seems to be implied by the phrase “strictly logical way.”
A
antunesaa
Guest
The fact that society “indulged” in slavery does not mean that it sanctioned it. Slave traders in Europe have always been seen as people of lower moral standards. During the 16th and 17th centuries the Catholic Church gradually emphasized the human nature of the peoples of the New World (contrary to the “beliefs” of the mercantile world and “secularized” clergy), the towering figure of that movement being Padre António Vieira. In Spain many bishops prohibited slave trade in the harbors of their dioceses; slave traders had to smuggle slaves inland. So, you cannot accurately say that abolitionism started in the 18th century.
E
Ender
Guest
This has been my only point. Reason is surely necessary but we can be sure it has reached right conclusions only if we know that the premises on which it is based are also right, and this is why I believe faith is also required.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
It is likely that for all non-Christian societies that was exactly what it meant.
I wasn’t really trying to comment on when opposition to slavery began to develop. I was only pointing out that slavery as an institution was pretty much world wide in scope throughout most of history, which represents a widespread failure of reason to recognize its immoral nature - which goes to my argument that reason alone is insufficient to determine all moral laws.
Ender
A
Abu
Guest
As a sceptic, and as none of the defective assumptions have held water, the burden of proof is lacking. From the beginning some people have chosen to ignore and defy the law written on their hearts (St Paul). Reason alone is not “insufficient” to know right from wrong in your examples; human bad will (as free-will) can and does defy the moral law, as it does also the doctrine on morals given to us through Christ’s Church.
**Pagans recognised slavery as wrong. **
medicolegal.tripod.com/catholicsvslavery.htm
Roman jurists had already developed the maxim that any doubts in cases of freedom or slavery, should be resolved in favor of liberty.—William E. H. Lecky (1838-1903), The Substance of History of European Morals (from Augustus to Charlemagne), 2 vols, ed. Clement Wood (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926), I, p 295.
For example, Roman jurist Domitius Ulpianus (c. 160 A.D. - 228 A.D.) had said, “by the law of nature all men are equal.”—Digest, L, 17.32; and “natural law regards all men as equal”—On Sabinus, Book XLIII.
Once again we see that the principle that good ought to be done and evil avoided is written on the heart, and the papal theologian gives us the reason why, through the fudging of “obvious” morality by a willful attention instead to the bizarre, this natural law is willfully avoided. (So is faith by dissenters):
Rome, Feb. 24, 2007 (Zenit.org)
zenit.org/article-19001?l=english
Excerpt:
“There is a rapid decline of appreciation of basic moral truths and of the capacity of seeing what is obvious, in the name of that which is fleeting, ephemeral, and therefore not intrinsically binding.”
Because the rulers of the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice says nothing against the natural law against murder – merely the self–will of the ruling clique. It is interesting that one of the Aztec priests was forced out of central Mexico in the 10th century because he opposed human sacrifice. “Nowhere else in history has Satan so formalized and institutionalized his worship with so many of his actual titles and symbols.” (The Cleaving of Christendom, Dr Warren H Carroll, Christendom Press, 2000, p 23).
“What is culturally relative is opinions about what is really right and wrong, not right and wrong themselves.” (Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft & Ronald K Tacelli, S.J., IVP 1994, p 375-6 – on the Aztec slaughter).
BTW, for the record, slavery was condemned by Eugene IV in 1435 by the bull Sicut Dudum, against a moral problem of a different sort than any previously encountered – racial slavery.
B
Betterave
Guest
You seem to be thinking of reason as a purely calculative faculty. I’m quite certain that is not what is meant by ‘natural reason.’ Reason (as envisioned, for example, by JPII in Fides et ratio) is responsible also for determining the truth of premises, not just for mechanically tracing out the conclusions that ‘logically’ follow from a given set of premises.
G
grannymh
Guest
Would the premise for moral actions be – The human person is worthy of profound respect?
E
Ender
Guest
I’ve read Fides et Ratio - which doesn’t mean I’ve retained a lot of it, but it is worth pointing out that simply referencing a document doesn’t go very far toward making a specific point. If you think FR supports your position then cite the section you find helpful. Things like this for example:
20. 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:
22 All men and women were caught up in this primal disobedience, which so wounded reason that from then on its path to full truth would be strewn with obstacles. From that time onwards the human capacity to know the truth was impaired by an aversion to the One who is the source and origin of truth. It is again the Apostle who reveals just how far human thinking, because of sin, became “empty”, and human reasoning became distorted and inclined to falsehood (cf. Rom 1:21-22). The eyes of the mind were no longer able to see clearly: reason became more and more a prisoner to itself.
42 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.
I didn’t find anything to support a contention that, in the area of morality, reason can function just fine without faith, in fact it is just the opposite:"[reason] cannot do without what faith presents."
Ender
B
Betterave
Guest
Try this: A requisite condition for moral action is that it be compatible with the maxim, “The human person is worthy of profound respect.”
B
Betterave
Guest
It does for someone who recognizes the truth of the point of reference. But apparently you don’t, so your case is different.
How is this helpful?
…or this?
First, don’t take things out of context: “at the summit of its searching reason acknowledges that it cannot do without what faith presents.” Second, it is *reason *that acknowledges the need for faith. You should notice that, just as I claimed, reason is not spoken of as a purely calculative faculty here. It is a faculty which assesses it’s own relation to faith.
G
grannymh
Guest
I see “The human person is worthy of profound respect” as an universal truth in that it exists for all time and applies to all human persons. When I think about conditions for moral action, I think more about immediate or surrounding circumstances which could change or be depended on something. War changes circumstances. Free choice or responsibility may depend on age or ability.
If I used the concept of a requisite condition, I would say that a requisite condition for moral action would be that the human being exists as a person in space and time. This comes from a conversation with someone who accepts reincarnation.
Blessings,
granny
Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.
E
Ender
Guest
Your “reference” was nothing more than* “something somewhere in this document supports my position.”* That’s pretty thin, and I doubt I’m the only one to recognize that. Frankly there seems little possibility that you will find anything in a document on “Faith and Reason” that extols reason disconnected from faith. You’ve really chosen the wrong document to support your position.It does for someone who recognizes the truth of the point of reference. But apparently you don’t, so your case is different.
Well, it isn’t helpful to your position; I cited it in support of mine. The true meaning of what reason understands is known only when combined with faith.
JPII is explaining that sin places limits on reason: “human thinking, because of sin, became “empty”.” Whatever we may say about reason in the abstract, given human nature, reason "became distorted and inclined to falsehood." Sorry, I didn’t think I needed to explain this.
The context is unchanged.
Well, since it was you and not I who created the “purely calculative faculty” phrase I didn’t see the need to comment on it. Besides, my position is confirmed by your own words: “it is reason that acknowledges the need for faith.” If reason needs faith [my claim] it is obvious that reason alone is insufficient [refuting your claim].
Ender
B
Betterave
Guest
No, my “point of reference” was to the document as a whole, not to “somewhere in this document.” I’ve already pointed out a passage that shows the falsity of your claim above (if I remember it was paragraph 56 - check upthread).
Here’s what JPII wrote:
*20. 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: *
The results *acquire *their true meaning. Obviously morality discovered by natural reason acquires an added “true” meaning when understood in light of the revealed truths of the faith. But JPII does not say, as you falsely impute him to, that these results themselves depend on faith.
That’s obvious and we’ve already discussed this point. Read the other paragraph that I referenced earlier to put this in context.
That’s obviously not true.
Yes, it was me, and you are the one who objected to the phrase I used!
Anyway, what is obvious is that reason is insufficient for certain tasks - big deal! I’ve granted that all along!
G
Greg27
Guest
It sounds like natural law theory, upon which the Catholic Church bases much of its ethical teaching on moral questions (i.e. abortion, homosexuality, IVF, end of life issues, etc). I think it would be a misunderstanding to say the natural law is ‘superior’ to God, at least from the Christian understanding.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
This is the CC’s official teaching on natural law:
ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW
1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.
1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. **All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2 **
I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5
1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:
Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.
**The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8 **
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
**For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9 **
1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:
Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11
1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature. "
These passages to me indicate the natural law is understood not a principle or set of principles co-eternal with God, but are a reflection of God’s wisdom. The natural law is, as Aquinas puts it, “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law” or as Blackstone puts it, “Being as he is a being of infinite wisdom, he has only laid down laws which were founded in those relations of justice, which existed in the nature of things antecedent of any positive precept.” (Commentaries on the Laws of England, Introduction, section 2). As such, these principles are discoverable by people through their use of reason and reflection on right and wrong, discernable in the exercise of freedom through the exercise of conscience, though this ability is marred and damaged because of sin and its effects on human nature.
G
Greg27
Guest
Edward Coke, a Judge in 17th century England, also said this in relation to natural law which I think is a good summary:
“The Law of Nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and this is lex aeterna,118 the Moral Law, called also the Law of Nature. And by this Law, written with the finger of God in the heart of man, were the people of God a long time governed, before that Law was written by Moses, who was the first Reporter or Writer of Law in the world.” (Calvin’s case, [118] - [119].)
“The Law of Nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and this is lex aeterna,118 the Moral Law, called also the Law of Nature. And by this Law, written with the finger of God in the heart of man, were the people of God a long time governed, before that Law was written by Moses, who was the first Reporter or Writer of Law in the world.” (Calvin’s case, [118] - [119].)
I
I_Fortuna
Guest
“Regretting is part of the human experience. However, it’s interesting to note that God also has regrets. For example in Gen 6:6 God regrets creating man, and in 1 Samuel 15:10,35 he regrets that he made Saul king.
This idea of God regretting also presents an interesting dilemma for the Arminian view of God. Open Theists point to regret as evidence that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge.”
seekadoo.blogspot.com/2007/11/gods-regrets-ben-over-at-arminian.html
I have seen instances where God has changed His mind and they are called miracles.
This idea of God regretting also presents an interesting dilemma for the Arminian view of God. Open Theists point to regret as evidence that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge.”
seekadoo.blogspot.com/2007/11/gods-regrets-ben-over-at-arminian.html
I have seen instances where God has changed His mind and they are called miracles.
- Status