What are the “objective moralities/truths”? Is there a list?

[IWantGod]

There’s a lot of different forms of taking a life and while there’s many we’d all agree on, e.g. murder being wrong, what about self-defense?

Self defense, especially defending others, is an act of love. I agree.

What about killing in a war? Though small there are Christian sects as well as members of other religions which don’t think they should serve in war because it would be taking life.

That’s a pacifist point of view. Of course, one should avoid war altogether in favor of other solutions. But it makes rational sense that there is such a thing as a “just-war”, that is if you love yourself and the well-being of your fellow countrymen. It’s self defense. I just don’t think there has been many “just wars”, and i wouldn’t like to fight for a country that has intentionally started wars for the sake of power or greed. So i wouldn’t fight for a war i didn’t morally agree with because it would be against my religion.

Death penalty? Obviously a lot of opinions on both sides from every aspect of society on that one.

Only in self defense in my opinion. In principle i don’t believe in eye for an eye. Life is sacred, and i think a pro-life approach to things really doesn’t make sense if you are willing to shed blood in vengeance. As a matter of prudence i would not want to make the mistake of giving the death penalty thinking that the lord who is love has given me that right. I would avoid it unless absolutely necessary…Even if someone could make the case that such and such is deserving of death, i would argue that such a case is an opportunity for mercy.

What about allowing someone to pass away by removing life support?

Human Life is sacred, and it doesn’t cease to be when we suffer. That’s a hard lesson that none of us would like to learn. If we look at it in purely emotional terms then certainly we would rather our loved ones died immediately rather than suffer until their eventual death.

Could prematurely ending someone’s life ever be an act of compassion and love if the suffering was great enough and the hope of reprieve small enough?

There is an act of compassion involved in ending somebodies suffering. But when it comes to taking a life that is sacred, the idea that you are loving them by killing them is ultimately flawed as such an act fails to uphold the fact that a persons life is sacred no matter what condition they are in.

If i lost my arms and legs, and was in constant pain for the rest of my life, i would not want to live, but that would not change the fact that my life has objectively value, and everything we do and every choice we make ought to reflect that value.

the simplest beginnings can lead to the most complex results.

Reasoning about what is right or wrong can get very complicated and difficult. We can think we are right when we are wrong. We can only pray for understanding and meditate on church teaching.

 

[PJM]

There is more than one list. Christians have a list, Jews have a different list (no pork). Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs Buddhists, Humanists etc all have lists.

The problem is not finding a list; the problem is justifying one list over another.

Even if you just use the Bible, there are different lists possible. Is the Sabbath a Sunday (most Christians) or a Saturday (SDAs)? Which of the Old Testament rules still apply and which do not? Should Christians kill people who worship different gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)?

rossum

Father John A. Hardon S. J. {may he rest in peace" taught this about TRUTH

“Truth is the condition of grace; it is the source of grace; it is the channel of grace; it is the Divinely Ordained requirement of grace”

GOOGLES; the SUMA/question 16/truth

Benedict XVI taught: "There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be NO truths"

Blessings,
Patrick

 

[Lucretius]

For those of you who advocate for morality and justice being reducible to the “do not harm” principle, here’s an brilliant, although disgusting, article illuminating just where the logic of such a position ends up:

Morality in the age of sex robots

Liberalism is going to need a new toolbox

theweek.com

Christi pax.

 

[Bradskii]

The criteria still stands.

You seem to be implying that even if no harm is done, if something is done that you get a general consensus on it being really repugnant, then it must be immoral.

‘Oh, that’s completely gross!’ equals immoral.

Otherwise, what criteria are you going to use?

 

[Lucretius]

We aren’t appealing to “general consensus” as a moral principle, but pointing out that even most liberals have a sense that some desires are inherently wrong, even if they don’t do “harm” in any straightforward sense.

Christi pax.

 

[redbaron162]

I would say that a good rule of thumb would be the Noahide laws. Traditionally it was thought that in OT times if a gentile kept these laws they were regarded by the Jewish people as overall being righteous. It was not required that gentiles become Jews (and in fact was usually very hard to do so). A jewish person did not consider a non-Jewish person eating pork as morally corrupt since they were not jewish. The Noahide laws are traditionally listed as: (Ref. Gen 9)

1.Not to worship idols.
2.Not to curse God.
3.To establish courts of justice.
4.Not to commit murder.
5.Not to commit adultery or sexual immorality.
6.Not to steal.
7.Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal.

Now Judaism did not seek to or require its members to make all people Jewish like Christianity does, and so I would say these are probably good to go by as a morality code and how they will be judged for those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ or his Church. (Catechism 846-848)

Now under the new Covenant all are called to repent and believe the Gospel, the most comprehensive way of doing so being active believers in Jesus Christ and participants in the Catholic Church. Those who (again through no fault of their own) do not believe in Jesus or are imperfectly united to his bride the Church would theoretically be judged in accordance with their understanding and honest following of God’s will and MAY be saved. Of course God is a perfect judge and knows exactly what a person did or did not understand and what their true intentions were.

 

[Bradskii]

We aren’t appealing to “general consensus” as a moral principle, but pointing out that even most liberals have a sense that some desires are inherently wrong, even if they don’t do “harm” in any straightforward sense.

Christi pax.

Then that is even less of reasonable criteria than ‘general consensus’. Despite the fact that you are implying a general consensus in any case in suggesting that ‘even most liberals’ (together with, one assumes, everyone else) might think something inherenty wrong. Why the need for this implied majority?

The point that you need to make is that something is inherently wrong DESPITE what anyone might think. And along those lines, here is something to ponder: that ‘anyone’ includes you. That is, unless you are in a position to declare EVERY act to be precisely moral or immoral, in which case we can all defer to you for an answer to all the problems of the world or…there must be some acts that you think are acceptable but which are immoral.

So how do you stand? Are there such acts you think are OK but are immoral or is your view on all moral problems the correct one?

 

[Bradskii]

Of course God is a perfect judge and knows exactly what a person did or did not understand and what their true intentions were.

If God does exist then I’m pretty certain that we would find out when we come to the grand reckoning if certain acts were what He would consider as moral or not. But that’s kinda late for it to make any difference in the here and now. Which is when we need to decide.

Hence we use harm as the deciding factor. If you have other criteria (other than a rather short list of do’s and dont’s) then bring them to the table.

 

[redbaron162]

If you are merely looking for a list then you will find that hard because most actions are not necessarily moral or immoral. For example: Is killing someone immoral? Well it may be immoral or it may be moral. Should you murder someone out of hatred? I think most people will agree that’s immoral. If you saw someone shooting up a school full of children and you have a gun and can shoot him should you? I would say yes and I believe most would agree with me, such a action may even be virtuous depends on the circumstances. It is not just the action that depends but the thoughts behind it and the circumstances. The catechism states:

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 4
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

 

[redbaron162]

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[Bradskii]

There’s not a lot in the catechism regarding moral acts with which I would disagree. The problem I have is the way that it is interpreted. That is, people consider the situation in which an act is performed and then decide internally how the catechism should be interpreted. That is relativism. Which almost all Catholics would claim is anethema to the faith.

For example, lying is morally bad. Period. But…some lying (there’s no-one in the attic) is not as bad as other lying (I was just out with the boys). How on earth is that not relativism? And how on earth could one consider the first example as being morally wrong? Just defining it as such doesn’t make it so. It is obvious to all reasonable people that lying to protect loved ones from a hideous death is the correct thing to do. It PREVENTS harm.

Perhaps you view it differently.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m paraphrasing the catechism. Whether I think lying is bad depends entirely on the situation. Sometimes it’s the right thing to do, other times not.

 

[Lucretius]

The article isn’t arguing for the basis for why some desires are intristically wrong. Rather, the article is pointing out how many who hold the “do no harm” principle as the sole principle in living are appalled by the sort of indulgence we see in the article, despite it being compatible with the “do no harm” principle.

The writer sees this as an example of people being better than their principles, and as a starting point of discussing other subjects such as homosexuality.

I do think these desires are inherently wrong, but to grasp why I think so would at least require understanding Aristotle’s basic approach to nature and natural philosophy. I usually recommend reading Books I and II of Aristotle’s Physics, just listening to Aristotle as a disciple listens to his master with an open mind, paying particular attention to his distincts between act and potential, form and matter, the four causes, and how nature is a source or principle as opposed to art and chance, and how nature must act for an end.

Once one grasps what nature is and how it acts for an end, ethics and moral theology make much, much more sense.

Christi pax.

 

[Dan123]

Rather, the article is pointing out how many who hold the “do no harm” principle as the sole principle in living are appalled by the sort of indulgence we see in the article, despite it being compatible with the “do no harm” principle.

I think it could be easily argued that indulging child sex fantasies instead of treating the mental illness causes hard to society. I’m not saying everyone would argue that, but many, including myself, would.

 

[Lucretius]

I see that argument as being on par with the argument that homosexuality is harmful to society. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn’t is because of the current fads of the age, and that people are better than their principles. There is no reasons in contemporary ethics standing in the way of accepting “no harm” pedophilia.

And honestly, there are few obsicles in the way of accepting pedophilia unqualified: if children can consent to transgender surgeries, then a fortiori they can consent to sexual activity. “Age of Consent” has always had an essential cultural basis. Contraceptives make it practically possible to avoid pregnancy. And so forth.

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

That is, people consider the situation in which an act is performed and then decide internally how the catechism should be interpreted. That is relativism. Which almost all Catholics would claim is anethema to the faith.

Catholic ethics have always been understood that much of proper living involves applying general principles and rules of thumb in one’s circumstances.

What we deny when we reject relativism is that value is defined by what we happen to desire, that no actions or intention are incompatible with the moral life (intristically wrong), that ethics is exhausted by “do no harm,” and so forth.

Ethics for us isn’t a science where from ethical principles one can demonstrate the correct course of action. Ethics involves adjunctive thinking, which is why ancient and Catholic thinkers emphasized the necessity of self-knowledge in living excellently, and that the virtue of prudence is the mother of all the other virtues.

Catholic ethics are rich and complex (and even vague sometimes), because life is rich and complex with infinite possiblity. Furthermore, our minds are very weak by their own nature alone, let alone even more so due to sin, and so it is difficult for us to discern the proper course of our actions and discern our own intentions.

From what we know about Aztec philosophy, they approached life as similar to balancing on a spiny craig, keeping oneself from falling into the sharp rock below. In a real sense, Catholic ethics also understands proper living like this, but for us, proper living is keeping oneself on the narrow path Christ cleared out, the one that will involve crucification among the way, but eventually will end up leading one out of the grave in resurrection.

Continued below…

 

[Lucretius]

Catholic ethics is something like “here are some things that are inherently incompatible with the kingdom of God, here’s how you should think and feel about certain things, keep your vows to death and put your convictions in Christ above even your own life, work on informing your intentions with charity and the virtues, follow Church positive law and obey superiors unless they lead you to sin, put God and his kingdom above society and family, and all these above yourself, remember that you are very weak, that it is extremely easy for you to trip, that if you think you’ll be able to handle something on your own or resist a temptation you are certainly wrong, that without God’s help and the right circumstances you would commit genocide, that living in Christ is moment to moment warfare with sin and the devil, and so forth. Now go out and share everything you have with everyone else, even your enemies, and offer your whole self to the Lord: go and immitate what Christ and the saints did, and remember the necessity of God’s grace through the Sacraments and constant prayer to succeed in living a holy life in Christ.”

Or something like that. It’s basically a list of don’ts, a scale of what is more valuable than what to inform one’s heart, some rules of thumb and principles, human psychology, natural law, humility, especially the humility of the sacraments, and the concrete example of Christ and the saints. Aristotle’s Ethics is basically the same sort of outline too, without the sacraments of course (Aristotle sees certain characters hopeless cases in ethical living).

Think of it this way: you can take a class on fixing cars, which will give rules of thumb, some things to avoid, and some general information, but at some point to actual become a mechanic, you simply have to go out and watch and immitate what car mechanics are doing until you “get the hang of it.” You cannot logical conclude how to fix a car, and it is the same in how to live ethically.

Christi pax.

 

[HarryStotle]

Lucretius:

A proper scientific analysis pretty easily indicates that the zygote is in fact an individual of the human species, that is, a person. Are we to say that an acorn is not the same species as an adult oak tree? Is a fetchling not also a spearow?

You switched from person to species.

Is an acorn a tree? It’s an Oak but is it a tree?

The thing is, Dan, that oak trees are monoecious. That means that a single acorn has within it all the genetic material required not just to become an oak tree but a forest of oaks. So you may as well ask whether an acorn is a forest of oaks. It is, virtually speaking, a forest because, all things being equal, it can become a forest in time.

Suppose you had in your hand, through some bizarre chain of causal events, the very last acorn on the earth. No more oak trees, no other acorns. In effect, you have the last oak tree and the potential to produce a forest of new ones. Destroy that acorn and you have destroyed the entire species.

Nothing like looking at reality through a lens that provides a wider view than the mere momentary slice that you inhabit, I suppose.