What does it mean if morality does not objectively exist?

[Lucretius]

Western society today enjoys a standard of living incomparably higher than existed at the end of WWII. The growth of prosperity in Europe, the rebuilding of nations devastated by the war, has been astonishing, yet there seems to be little satisfaction, and even more unhappiness than existed when people were struggling.

This is because happiness isn’t found in wealth, but in God. Eventually everyone realizes that no created good can fulfill our deepest desires.

Even reaching the end of morality, happiness as understood by natural law, etc., is only a means towards ultimate fulfillment, the beatific Vision. Our passions and desires are aimed towards their end through virtue, but we still have to receive the object that fulfills them. They move in the right direction, but they are not fulfilled until they reach the destination.

Now, our passions can be fulfilled through created goods, and are naturally, but the desires of our spirit are potentially infinite, which simply cannot be satisfied without an infinite good. This is of course God. This is why St. Paul says that the law doesn’t complete us, but rather the grace of Christ Jesus.

Christi pax.

 

[Rau]

…There is a major difference, however. If anyone can prove that my convictions are erroneous, I am free to change them.

How should convictions which you make up (eg. “it’s ok to murder one innocent to save two others”) be disproved? You reject the very thing that can underpin definitive moral analysis - external principles (and their source).

…Even if you genuinely disagree with something that the church teaches, you are required to follow what the church says. The word you might be looking for is: “blind obedience”.

There is no blindness involved. Nor is there any requirement or compulsion. Curiously - I know that what the Church teaches is the right course.

More and more Catholics are willing to think for themselves in the field of sexual practices, homosexual marriage, contraception, ordination of women and many other contentious fields.

I can’t comment on the “thinking”, but clearly many act in a contrary manner. Which just goes to demonstrate there is no requirement or compulsion.

 

[Rau]

Obviously, just like you.

Not quite… I didn’t “make up” the rules. I believe there is an unimpeachable source of these truths. I have heard them and my judgement is that they are good. My conscience is consequently informed.

 

[Ender]

No, they are not. I have my standard, and you have your standard. They are simply different.

Yes, they are, and what I’m trying to do is to get you to deal logically with what you claim to believe. I asked earlier why I should not steal, or commit any crime I thought I could get away with, and you gave a purely practical answer: because I might get caught. I assumed you meant that getting punished was not in our best interest therefore we should not do things that put us at risk.

OK, fair enough, but by that standard Otto Schindler should not have helped Jews survive in WWII because if he was discovered he might well have been executed. Either “don’t do things that might get you in trouble” is your standard or it isn’t, but you can’t apply that objection to me (or El Chapo) and not apply the same standard to Schindler. If you oppose El Chapo’s drug running as “wrong” because he risks punishment, then Shindler’s actions were equally wrong as he ran the same risk.

If there is no intrinsic right or wrong then life saving actions and life taking ones are morally equivalent.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If anyone can prove that my convictions are erroneous, I am free to change them.

Convictions based on choices can be neither proved nor disproved, nor have I tried to do that. What I am trying to do is to get you to carefully examine the implications of your beliefs, which is why I’ve used the examples of El Chapo and Otto Schindler. You obviously can say you prefer the actions of Schindler, but I don’t think your principles logically allow you to claim that one did right and the other did wrong.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The word you might be looking for is: “blind obedience”.

Have you ever studied physics? If you have, do you consider it blind obedience to follow the teachings of Einstein and Newton? Why aren’t you as free to construct your own physical principles as you are to invent your own moral ones? It is not a question of blindly following someone else’s opinions, but of recognizing the truth and acting accordingly. Surely you can appreciate the distinction.

Ender

 

[Contarini]

Let me answer your question this way. Does beauty in any form have an objective standard? Does good music or good poetry have an objective standard? Does fine wine have an objective standard? Does good teaching or tutoring have an objective standard? I think the answer to these questions and many more similar to them is probably not. The standard is, after all, man-made. Yet we measure our preferences, our likes and dislikes, according to some standard, subjective though it may be, and react accordingly. I think the same can be said of morality.

My answer would be “yes.”

But even if the answer is “no,” reducing morality to an aesthetic standard, defined as you are doing, is still hugely problematic. I would in fact argue that it’s so problematic that this all by itself is reason not only to believe in objective morality but in objective aesthetic standards as well. That is to say, I think your implicit point that morality is much like an aesthetic standard is correct. But I think one could still make a case for morality being sufficiently different that moral standards might be objective while aesthetic ones were subjective. I’m just not that interested in making such a case.

Saying that there is objective morality and objective beauty does not mean that individual moral or aesthetic judgments are objective or that there’s not room for huge disagreement.

I may find a novel or movie or piece of music great which you think is quite shoddy. It doesn’t follow that we have purely subjective standards, but rather that beauty is a multifaceted thing and that we are each more attuned to a different aspect of it.

Edwin

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

How should convictions which you make up (eg. “it’s ok to murder one innocent to save two others”) be disproved? You reject the very thing that can underpin definitive moral analysis - external principles (and their source).

I don’t know. If I could disprove it to my satisfaction, I would discard it. All I can promise is that I will not dig in my heels, and reject a rational argument. By the way, I did not “make up” my convictions ex nihilo. Most of them were instilled in me by my parents, relatives, and even the church I attended when I was young. Then, later, when my critical skills developed, I revised them, I kept some and discarded others. It was long process. But the result seems to work just fine. I have been mistakenly thought to be a very good Christian, and when I denied it, there was a serious “gasp” moment.

There is no blindness involved. Nor is there any requirement or compulsion. Curiously - I know that what the Church teaches is the right course.

You mean you BELIEVE that somehow, no matter what the problem is, you use your rational thinking, and somehow it happens to agree with what the church teaches. If that is the case, then there is no need for the church. You are one lucky guy .

I can’t comment on the “thinking”, but clearly many act in a contrary manner. Which just goes to demonstrate there is no requirement or compulsion.

The requirements are not enforced, except attempted to be enforced by some threat. The church holds the keys to heaven, so you must obey, if you want to get to heaven. In the older times they were enforced by the full power of the states, which were not independent from the clergy.

The problem is that people do not accept that the church is infallible - and you can blame the church itself for this diminished acceptance. We are all supposed to follow our conscience. However, there is a caveat: “your conscience must be well-formed”. And how do we know if our conscience is well-formed, or not? It must coincide with whatever the church happens to teach. So there is no need to follow your conscience. Nice dilemma, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Rau]

You mean you BELIEVE that somehow, no matter what the problem is, you use your rational thinking, and somehow it happens to agree with what the church teaches. If that is the case, then there is no need for the church. You are one lucky guy

Hell no! Nothing like that. I studied what was taught - and found it compelling. I’ve heard your ideas too - no such reaction.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Hell no! Nothing like that. I studied what was taught - and found it compelling. I’ve heard your ideas too - no such reaction.

So you agree with EVERYTHING that the church teaches? No discrepancy whatsoever? What do you do when the teaching changes? And how does your conscience work when the church is silent on the matter, or when it allows you to choose what you believe? How do you choose when two interpreters of the teaching resolve the teaching differently?

There was a time when the “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” was taken literally and verbatim. Everyone outside the Catholics - namely all the Protestants, the Muslims and the atheists were all “hellbound”. Today it is not literal any more. Have fun reading here: godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/PopeCalls.htm

There was a time when the evolution was complete no-no. When it was impossible to ignore the facts, the teaching has changed. You are free to accept or reject evolution, as long as you maintain that the actual evolution is directed by God.

You are free to choose the allegorical or literal interpretation of Genesis, as long as you accept certain parts of it literally.

So you are not in an easy situation. As such when you made the remark:

Put another way - personal judgement.

you were talking about yourself, too.

 

[Rau]

I don’t know. If I could disprove it to my satisfaction, I would discard it.

A proof “to one’s satisfaction” ? Proofs are characterised by a sequence of logical deductions from given premises. The premises are the issue. And I don’t believe they themselves are amenable to proving/disproving.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

A proof “to one’s satisfaction” ? Proofs are characterised by a sequence of logical deductions from given premises. The premises are the issue. And I don’t believe they themselves are amenable to proving/disproving.

It is not necessary to use a formal proof. Use the word “substantiate” if you want to. The point is that I developed my ethical system, just like you developed yours. I am always willing to reconsider, if you can present a rational argument against mine.

 

[Peter_J]

So you agree with EVERYTHING that the church teaches? No discrepancy whatsoever? What do you do when the teaching changes? And how does your conscience work when the church is silent on the matter, or when it allows you to choose what you believe? How do you choose when two interpreters of the teaching resolve the teaching differently?

There was a time when the “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” was taken literally and verbatim. Everyone outside the Catholics - namely all the Protestants, the Muslims and the atheists were all “hellbound”. Today it is not literal any more. Have fun reading here: godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/PopeCalls.htm

The thing is, the Catholics in question were wrong, *not only in their interpretation of EENS, *but also in putting words in the church’s mouth.

 

[Rau]

So you agree with EVERYTHING that the church teaches? No discrepancy whatsoever? What do you do when the teaching changes?

I don’t even claim to be aware of EVERYTHING that is taught. But the principles that underpin morality I am across - and that’s been the primary area of debate with you. I’m not aware of anything in this space that has changed.

And how does your conscience work when the church is silent on the matter, or when it allows you to choose what you believe?

I can’t think right now of an area of moral behaviour where I’m unable to know the right course by application of Christian moral principles. Of course there are concrete situations where what is the moral course is not definitively knowable (balance of consequences being the issue) - but in those cases no more is expected than our best effort.

There was a time when the “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” was taken literally and verbatim. Everyone outside the Catholics - namely all the Protestants, the Muslims and the atheists were all “hellbound”. Today it is not literal any more…There was a time when the evolution was complete no-no. When it was impossible to ignore the facts, the teaching has changed. You are free to accept or reject evolution, as long as you maintain that the actual evolution is directed by God.

I’ve no idea whether what you right here is even correct.

You are free to choose the allegorical or literal interpretation of Genesis, as long as you accept certain parts of it literally.

I think the idea is to accept the religious truths (as a matter of faith I should think) as opposed to the literary vehicle for conveying them. If that’s so, why would it be a problem?

 

[Peter_J]

A proof “to one’s satisfaction” ? Proofs are characterised by a sequence of logical deductions from given premises. The premises are the issue. And I don’t believe they themselves are amenable to proving/disproving.

Indeed.

As a very logical man once said “Logic, logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.”

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I can’t think right now of an area of moral behaviour where I’m unable to know the right course by application of Christian moral principles. Of course there are concrete situations where what is the moral course is not definitively knowable (balance of consequences being the issue) - but in those cases no more is expected than our best effort.

How about using animals to test beauty products?

I’ve no idea whether what you right here is even correct.

Well, I am not sure if this sentence is even syntactically correct, but I simply enumerated a few instances where the church drastically changed its “teaching”.

I think the idea is to accept the religious truths (as a matter of faith I should think) as opposed to the literary vehicle for conveying them. If that’s so, why would it be a problem?

If you need to resort to faith, then you left the area of rationality. If something is rational, it does not need faith. If the “literary vehicle” is unclear and ambiguous then it needs to be interpreted. And if the church does NOT interpret it, then you need to do the interpretation yourself. So what is the difference between you and I?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Indeed.

As a very logical man once said “Logic, logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.”

Correct. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. What is really needed is rationality.

 

[Rau]

How about using animals to test beauty products?

An area I’ve never thought much about. I suggest causing pain to animals for frivolous reasons is immoral.

I simply enumerated a few instances where the church drastically changed its “teaching”.

I don’t know whether you’ve done that or not. The other poster seems to disagree. Though neither of the matters you mention has any bearing on how I determine right from wrong.

If you need to resort to faith, then you left the area of rationality.

“Resort” to it? That seems a strange expression to me. Have you faith in nothing at all? Belief in God seems quite rational to me. Given time, I suspect it might be for you too.

 

[o_mlly]

No, they are not. I have my standard, and you have your standard. They are simply different.

That is the logic of the Nazi defense at Nuremberg.

Secular law or positive law cannot pretend to differentiate killing from murder. We need an objective criterion, God’s revelation, a vantage point beyond the human condition, to guide us to certain knowledge of human rights, especially the right to life.

The philosophy of legal positivism prevents arguing for human rights outside the legal system per se. Legal systems cannot criticize each other. Under legal positivism, if legal system A, claims that legal system B is immoral it must do so only from a reference to itself. System B does not recognize the validity of system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless by system B.

The Nazis leaders used legal positivism to defend themselves at Nuremberg. The only reason, the Nazis claimed, that they found themselves in the defendants’ chair at Nuremberg was that they had the misfortune of losing the war.

The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies, and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of Jews was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.

Jackson, the lead prosecutor, had to depart from and ultimately debunk the philosophy of legal positivism and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to prosecute the legal system of another country. He appealed to the basic principles of civilization in order to prosecute the jurisprudence of the Nazi legal system. To transcend human law, Jackson, of course, had to take recourse to religion, to revelation

 

[Ender]

If you need to resort to faith, then you left the area of rationality.

Faith is the belief in things unseen. Your belief that God does not exist is as much an act of faith as is the belief that he does exist. Both of those positions can be rationally defended, but neither can be proved. You have no claim to rationality against those who believe other than you.

I am also still waiting for you to provide a rational explanation as to why the actions of Otto Schindler were morally different than those of El Chapo. You have said several times you have your own moral standard. My charge has always been that your standard does not logically permit you to make such distinctions, which ought to suggest a problem with such a standard.

Ender