What does it mean if morality does not objectively exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ender
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
An area I’ve never thought much about. I suggest causing pain to animals for frivolous reasons is immoral.
But you reached that conclusion without consulting the teaching of the church. And what is frivolous reason is also a subjective value judgment. Moreover, the church teaches that God gave dominion over the animals, which means that humans can do whatever they want. That is the meaning of dominion.
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.
The question was, how do you react when the teaching of the church changes - and changes significantly. Would you perform an act of doublethink, like “Oceania is at war with Eurasia, and so Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia”? (refer to the novel of 1984 from George Orwell).
“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. 😉
Faith is an overused word, from not having a Cartesian certainty all the way to have no evidence at all, and even to believe something which is contradicted by evidence. Sure, I believe lots of things for which there is no direct, observable, physical evidence, but I don’t believe anything which is contradicted by evidence. For example, the kind of faith, which believes in God’s benevolence is totally contradicted by the available evidence. Of course if you accept that benevolence is compatible with allowing/performing genocide, then you “win”, but then there is no need to have a conversation.
 
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.
It depends. I would not be able to prove that a DEISTIC god does not exist, but it is easy to prove that “married bachelors” cannot exist. And the usual definition of the “God of the philosophers” is just as impossible as the “married bachelors”.
 
But you reached that conclusion without consulting the teaching of the church. And what is frivolous reason is also a subjective value judgment. Moreover, the church teaches that God gave dominion over the animals, which means that humans can do whatever they want. That is the meaning of dominion.
So much nonsense…(1).Why must I first consult “the Church”? Why does the order of things matter? What matters is my agreement. (2) Value judgements are acceptable in moral judgements, specifically in (3rd font) consequences. How else are pro and cons (which arise in the consequences) to be weighed? There is no scope for value judgements in respect of the negative precepts. (3) Humans have free will and can do whatever they want in all matters. My capacity to do what I want to the family pet does not make it right. I can break down your door too - bad as vandalism, good if in the course of pulling you from the burning building. 🤷
The question was, how do you react when the teaching of the church changes - and changes significantly.
Assumes facts not proven. And the examples you proffered (and I have no idea of their voracity) have no bearing on our topic of morality.
 
It depends. I would not be able to prove that a DEISTIC god does not exist, but it is easy to prove that “married bachelors” cannot exist. And the usual definition of the “God of the philosophers” is just as impossible as the “married bachelors”.
You base your proof that God does not exist because it can be shown that logically impossible things cannot exist? Aquinas is said to have had five proofs that God exists. I doubt that your “proofs” are as compelling as his, but even in his case, a logical argument rarely constitutes proof as the word is commonly used. God’s existence is not subject to proof. It is a question of belief, either that he exists or that he does not exist.

Ender
 
You base your proof that God does not exist because it can be shown that logically impossible things cannot exist?
Not so fast. The definition of God - the attributes ascribed to God are party meaningless (or nonsensical) and partly mutually exclusive (contradictory). And that is why the God of Christianity does not and cannot exist. A different god (lowercase god), with a different set of characteristics might of might not exist.

I would have no problem of accepting a very smart and very capable god, who likes to experiment with different worlds, creates them to observe how they evolve and change. And maybe at the end just “recycle” the building materials (LEGO blocks :D?) and build something else.

But this does not really belong to the current thread. 🙂
 
But this does not really belong to the current thread.
Then let’s get back to what does belong in this thread, which was started to address the problems associated with the belief that morality does not objectively exist. I have several times raised the issue of whether your moral system rationally allows you to choose between the actions of Otto Schindler and El Chapo. What I’m trying to point out is that you have no means, based on your own standard, of differentiating between their actions, and that this is the inevitable consequence if morality is merely subjective.

Ender
 
Then let’s get back to what does belong in this thread, which was started to address the problems associated with the belief that morality does not objectively exist. I have several times raised the issue of whether your moral system rationally allows you to choose between the actions of Otto Schindler and El Chapo. What I’m trying to point out is that you have no means, based on your own standard, of differentiating between their actions, and that this is the inevitable consequence if morality is merely subjective.

Ender
Does belief in G-d per se make morality objective, particularly when people interpret G-d’s commandments differently both within and across religions? Given this, can morality ever be truly objective whether for believers or non-believers?
 
Does belief in G-d per se make morality objective, particularly when people interpret G-d’s commandments differently both within and across religions? Given this, can morality ever be truly objective whether for believers or non-believers?
Yes, theism implies moral realism. And atheism implies the opposite. Yet all the atheists and agnostics I know behave in impeccably moral ways most of the time: they obey the laws, call their mothers on their birthdays, refrain from doing harm to their neighbors and even strangers, etc. It’s almost as if the human moral sense exists independently of formal religious beliefs.
 
Yes, theism implies moral realism. And atheism implies the opposite. Yet all the atheists and agnostics I know behave in impeccably moral ways most of the time: they obey the laws, call their mothers on their birthdays, refrain from doing harm to their neighbors and even strangers, etc. It’s almost as if the human moral sense exists independently of formal religious beliefs.
The real explanation is that pretty much everyone is raised very similarly when it comes to human interactions.

A few hundred years ago killing the infidels was an acceptable behavior. Today only a small minority of the children is brought up in the spirit that “infidels” must be slaughtered. And they become terrorists.
 
Does belief in G-d per se make morality objective, particularly when people interpret G-d’s commandments differently both within and across religions? Given this, can morality ever be truly objective whether for believers or non-believers?
These are valid questions even though they are not relevant to the one I asked in the OP. I’ll address them, but keep in mind that whatever position we hold on your questions has no significance regarding the answers to mine. I’m prepared to discuss this to some extent, but I don’t want the discussion about my question to morph into a debate about yours.

Believing something is true does not make it so. Belief in God does not make morality objectively exist. The opposite is also true: the fact that different people believe in very different gods and moral systems doesn’t mean that they are therefore all wrong. What we believe to be true has no effect on what actually is true.

Either God exists or he doesn’t; either morality is objectively true or it isn’t, and what we believe about the question doesn’t matter any more than believing this little, three leafed plant next to me isn’t poison ivy means I won’t break out in blisters if I touch it.

I do recognize this link between your questions and mine: if we believe morality objectively exists (whether it actually does or not) we can construct a moral system that is rational; that is, it is rational to have a moral system. If we do not believe morality exists objectively then morality itself is not a rational belief; it can no more exist for man than it can for animals.

This question is somewhat implied by your comments about multiple belief systems: can morality be said to objectively exist if we can’t know what it is? It seems doubtful. Saying “Morality exists but you can never know what it is” is not functionally different than saying “Morality does not exist.”

Ender
 
The definition of God - the attributes ascribed to God are party meaningless (or nonsensical) and partly mutually exclusive (contradictory). And that is why the God of Christianity does not and cannot exist.
I would be interested in seeing you defend these assertions.

Ender
 
I would be interested in seeing you defend these assertions.
That could be done in a new thread. For the time being, let’s take two, simple attributes: “just” and “merciful”. A just judge would deliver a sentence, which is exactly, precisely commensurate to the deed. A merciful judge would deliver a sentence that is more lenient than what would be deserved. (There would be a third alternative, a “hanging judge”, whose sentence is more severe than deserved. That would be God, if there would be a hell.)

Of course a judge could be just sometimes and merciful at other times. But God is supposed to me both perfectly just and infinitely merciful. Two contradictory attributes. Just as impossible as a “married bachelor” would be.
 
That could be done in a new thread. For the time being, let’s take two, simple attributes: “just” and “merciful”. A just judge would deliver a sentence, which is exactly, precisely commensurate to the deed. A merciful judge would deliver a sentence that is more lenient than what would be deserved. (There would be a third alternative, a “hanging judge”, whose sentence is more severe than deserved. That would be God, if there would be a hell.)

Of course a judge could be just sometimes and merciful at other times. But God is supposed to me both perfectly just and infinitely merciful. Two contradictory attributes. Just as impossible as a “married bachelor” would be.
This is assuming that justice and mercy are polar opposites. This is not necessarily the case. A just judge will often take into account mitigating (or aggravating) circumstances and be merciful if these exist. Such may include no past criminal record on the part of the accused, the influence of their family life, the mental capacity of the accused, the intent of the accused, and so on. Likewise, a merciful judge might consider setting a socially dangerous precedent if their sentence is too lenient. If human law encompasses such factors, would not divine law also incorporate them, and to an even greater extent?
 
That could be done in a new thread. For the time being, let’s take two, simple attributes: “just” and “merciful”. A just judge would deliver a sentence, which is exactly, precisely commensurate to the deed. A merciful judge would deliver a sentence that is more lenient than what would be deserved.
Mercy doesn’t contradict justice, rather, it is better said that mercy goes beyond justice. Justice says that the criminal owes this to God for his sins, but God says that I give you that which you owe me as gift.

St. Thomas uses this analogy:

God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving: “Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fulness thereof. And thus it is said: “Mercy exalteth itself above judgment” (James 2:13).

So, in other words, the criminal gives what is owed to God, to God, and God simply gives it back to him as free gift. The gift by definition is not owed to the criminal, but is give to him because of the goodness and mercy of God.
(There would be a third alternative, a “hanging judge”, whose sentence is more severe than deserved. That would be God, if there would be a hell.)
Just as God has deemed that temporary actions can receive eternal reward, it follows that temporary actions can fairly receive eternal damnation too. If goodness can merit eternal life, then a lack of goodness can fairly merit a lack of eternal life: eternal death, or hell.

Furthermore, those who do harm against someone in authority receive a greater punishment, like how a man who kills a police officer is punished more severely. In a similar way, since God’s glory is infinite, an infinite punishment of doing wrong against him is just.

St. John of the Cross says that we will be judged on our love. Our offense to our neighbor is bad enough, but to see our offense to the infinite God who is loving us with infinite love our whole lives is way too much to bear. I think you should read this article by Mr. James Chestek: thomism.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/to-be-judged-on-love/

By willing against charity, a man cuts himself off from the City of God, as St. Augustine puts it, since charity is the “glue” that holds God and the Blessed together. Therefore, he who acts against charity makes him unfit to live in the New Jerusalem, just as a murder makes himself unfit to live in our communities, and so we jail him. If the criminal shows sorrow and repentance for his actions, after a while he may be allowed to re-enter the community, as in our institution of justice, and as in those in purgatory. But for those who will sin, unless their will begins to reform into one of charity, they will always will sin, they will always will their final end to be a creature, and so God exiles them from the City of God and allows him to experience the true nature of his sin, as we see in Dante’s Inferno.

The man who wants to stop sinning just because of his punishment is not repentant, because he would still continue in the sin if there was no punishment. His will is still in conflict with God. While as someone in purgatory understands the evil of his sin, and in some degree no longer will sin, and the time in purgatory helps fully rectify his will, free it from the enslavement of sins and disordered emotions, ordering his passions to their proper objects, and integrate his will with his passions into a unity. In other words, purgatory helps develop virtue so that man can be a master of himself, so that that love of God and neighbor that was suppressed under disordered passions and an enstrangled will can be overcome and expressed in pleasure and joy to the fullness in the Kingdom of Heaven, as we see at the end of Dante’s journey to the top of Mt. Purgatory:

*When all the staircase lay beneath us and
we’d reached the highest step, then Virgil set
his eyes insistently on me and said:

'My son, you’ve seen the temporary fire
and the eternal fire; you have reached
the place past which my powers cannot see.

I’ve brought you here through intellect and art;
from now on, let your pleasure be your guide;
you’re past the steep and past the narrow paths.

Look at the sun that shines upon your brow;
look at the grasses, flowers, and the shrubs
born here, spontaneously, of the earth.

Among them, you can rest or walk until
the coming of the glad and lovely eyes—
those eyes that, weeping, sent me to your side.

Await no further word or sign from me:
your will is free, erect, and whole—to act
against that will would be to err: therefore

I crown and miter you over yourself.’*

An unrepentant sinner acts against his own self-mastery, and doesn’t possess any love of God, and so the fires cannot purify him, for there is nothing in him to bring out and purify, no love of God. No matter how much you try, you can’t bring gold out of an ore that doesn’t possess any.
 
Of course a judge could be just sometimes and merciful at other times. But God is supposed to me both perfectly just and infinitely merciful. Two contradictory attributes. Just as impossible as a “married bachelor” would be.
A man’s very act of creation is a free gift, a mercy, and it is only then that God owes him his rational nature and the abilities from such a being therefore. So the very acts of justice in God presuppose his very mercy and goodness, and are not in conflict with his justice, as St. Thomas explains:

For nothing is due to creatures, except for something pre-existing in them, or foreknown. Again, if this is due to a creature, it must be due on account of something that precedes. And since we cannot go on to infinity, we must come to something that depends only on the goodness of the divine will–which is the ultimate end. We may say, for instance, that to possess hands is due to man on account of his rational soul; and his rational soul is due to him that he may be man; and his being man is on account of the divine goodness. So in every work of God, viewed at its primary source, there appears mercy. In all that follows, the power of mercy remains, and works indeed with even greater force; as the influence of the first cause is more intense than that of second causes.

All of God’s acts are just and merciful, but some acts can appear more just, and others more merciful too.

I think if you want to continue on this subject though, you should form a new thread 😃

Christi pax.
 
If moral realism isn’t true, it means that morality is effectively an illusion; it only exists inside our heads. It has no bearing on the world outside of us or how that world works. Morality as we think of it may continue to have some utility in human relations but there’s no reason to believe it has any independent existence outside of our heads. (This is not my belief, I should be quick to point out.) One consequence would be that one could no longer use natural law as any kind of justification for anything. For the theist, a whole new moral philosophy would have to be adopted, perhaps utilitarianism.

There’s a book by a philosopher named Richard Joyce titled “The Myth of Morality” which delves into these issues and which I’m curious to read some day.

I should also be quick to point out it is really hard to adjust to this way of thinking since we are all so used to thinking in moral terms. As one goes through one’s day going about one’s business one is bombarded with moral exhortations - and very few of them are explicitly religious. Save the whales! Stop the genocide! Do the right thing! Don’t litter!

If moral realism is wrong, none of these exhortations have any weight or (obviously) authority. I can not litter if I choose to because it makes me feel good or because I’m concerned about the appearance of or long-term consequences of littering on the environment, but I can’t do it because it’s ‘the right thing to do’ because there is no right thing to do. It is very difficult to adjust to thinking that morality is merely a human invention, or convention, since we all as humans engage in moral reasoning on an almost constant basis. If Richard Joyce and his ilk are correct (and let’s hope they’re not) it may just be something that we humans do as a result of our evolutionary history and makeup. If a different species had evolved to be in the position we’re in, they would presumably have a very different morality. (There’s a quote from E.O. Wilson I read but don’t have ready access to that says that for such a species evolved from bees incest for example would not be taboo but celebrated; I’ll post the passage if I can find it.)
 
There is a major difference, however. If anyone can prove that my convictions are erroneous, I am free to change them. However, that freedom does not exist for you. 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”.
Freedom does exist for us–a true freedom. It is insulting when those, such as yourself, consider yourselves and your discernment so superior to ours–and assert we just blindly follow Church teaching in some kind of unthinking stupor–like mindless sheep.

We believe in the resurrection and that has consequences. If Christ rose from the dead–things follow from that. You may find the evidence for the resurrection lacking or unconvincing, but many do not. Church teaching is on the whole more reasoned, the product of much more rigorous thought–than much of what secular society throws at us today–which is primarily based on feelings as opposed to logic and reason–while at the same time believing itself to be so enlightened.

A reasoned decision that something is true–is not blind obedience. Most “Catholics” or former Catholics I know who disagree with Church teaching do so not because they have studied the teaching and the reasoning behind it, rather they just feel its wrong without giving it much thought. To be quite truthful one could say that in reality–they just blindly follow their feelings and the secular culture that affirms those feelings. They have confused feelings with actual truth or perhaps they believe that feelings = truth.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
This is assuming that justice and mercy are polar opposites. This is not necessarily the case. A just judge will often take into account mitigating (or aggravating) circumstances and be merciful if these exist. Such may include no past criminal record on the part of the accused, the influence of their family life, the mental capacity of the accused, the intent of the accused, and so on. Likewise, a merciful judge might consider setting a socially dangerous precedent if their sentence is too lenient. If human law encompasses such factors, would not divine law also incorporate them, and to an even greater extent?
A just judge MUST take all the circumstances into consideration. After considering all the circumstances the verdict must be delivered. It would be extremely unjust NOT to consider ALL the circumstances. IF the verdict is commensurate (equal) to the deed (and all the circumstances) THEN the verdict was just. That is what a just sentence is. If the sentence is lighter than that - suppose the judge likes the criminal - then it is not just any more. If the verdict is harsher than it should be - maybe the judge hates the accused - then the verdict is not just again.

Let’s take “A” be the act and all the circumstances. Let’s get “V” the severity of the verdict.

If “A” = “V”, the sentence was just.
If “A” > “V” the sentence was too light or “merciful”.
If “A” < “V” the sentence was too harsh. “Hanging judge”?

This is simple math. 🙂
 
It is insulting when those, such as yourself, consider yourselves and your discernment so superior to ours–and assert we just blindly follow Church teaching in some kind of unthinking stupor–like mindless sheep.
Sure, you are allowed to have a different opinion. But you are required, mandated, commanded to follow what the church says - even if you disagree with it. Even if you investigated and researched the question in detail. That is called blind obedience. If you have a more precise phrase, I am interested to know. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top