Why are discussions about morality so futile?

[TimeEntrance]

I’d agree. Based on one’s religious background alone I couldn’t make an assessment (in most cases) about how a person of that religion would treat me or others. I say in most cases because there are some religious groups that teach messages of hate.

I’m not so much pleased in you agreeing with me (because what if I was wrong?) as I am pleased in you acknowledging that basic truth. What I think is truth. And by the evidence I see in life I can’t conclude otherwise without being a bald faced liar.

But I just saw this posted on yahoo news. I don’t begrudge this young woman her financial inheritance nor whatever non-material fortune she may have.

And I’m not prepared to argue it’s wrong for a person to own an island privately. In fact, this Greek island is probably smaller than the territorial size of some plantations in Brazil owned by single individuals known as “Colonels.” Some of those Brazilian plantations are the size of European countries.

The image of “the devil” and “the sinner” is usually the bum on a Chicago or L.A. street. Or conversely some make them look out to be innocent victims and all the rich or mega rich out to be the faces of the devil and the greatest sinners of the world.

Story: homes.yahoo.com/news/russian-heiress-rybolovleva-buys-greek-island-owned-by-onassis-family-005952220.html

Ekaterina Rybolovleva, the 24-year-old daughter of Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev, has officially acquired Skorpios, the private Greek island owned by Athina Onassis Roussel, the sole heir of late shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis.

The sale price is unknown, though several Greek news outlets have reported a price tag in the $150 million range. In the early 2000s, the property was valued as high as $200 million, before the country’s economy took a nosedive in the European financial crisis.

Whatever the final number, Rybolovleva can afford it. Or, more aptly, her father can. Dmitry Rybolovlev is worth $9.1 billion by Forbes’ estimate, making him the 119th richest person in the world. (Read more about the Skorpios purchase on Forbes.com.)

This house itself does not put a twinge of guilt into me as much as the price tag. Beautiful things are a virtue to me whether in art or functional art like architecture and not a vice. However, the price tag on somethings can make you feel guilty. So, just the thought and desiring of this home with two or three other residential properties over a million dollars each, had made me feel guilty. Greedy. Desires that are greedy and covetous.

Mansion: sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-582-20196079/hillside-mediterranean-estate-paradise-valley-az-85253

But then I wonder if I’m just conditioned as a slave mentally? After all, don’t rich Mexican Cartel own magnificent properties all over, and legitimate business people own luxury homes and properties or lots of land, while so many children and adults live destitute or diseased and deformed with few to no one on earth to help them, but for a few kind atheists (e.g., Doctors Without Boarders) and religious people (e.g., nuns taking care of lepers on some God cursed spot in Africa).

I don’t think the rich are evil for being rich but they do hold the power in the world (reduced as it may be through the collective votes and protests of the common man in democracies).

 

[Bradski]

Without an appeal to an Absolute Law, all the perpetrator has to say is, “I am using the very same paradigm that you are using–deciding for myself what’s right and wrong–but I came to a different conclusion than you did.”

What the Believer says is, “You are using a completely arbitrary paradigm. I believe that there is an Absolute Right and an Absolute Wrong, and to the degree that my conscience is informed by this Absolute Truth is the degree that my moral decisions will be correct. When you follow that model to come to the Truth, then we can chat further.”

I really think that you have this the wrong way around. I’m sure that if someone came to you and said that what you happened to be doing was wrong, you’d want to know on what basis they came to that decision. If they said that they believe in an Absolute Law maker and that Absolute Law maker is a small rock they keep in a box in the spare room, then you would simply ignore them.

If, however, someone tells you that you are doing something wrong and can offer reasonable explanations as to how they came to that decision and show you that there are negative, or potential negative outcomes, then you, as a reasonable person, can accept or reject those reasons. If there are negative outcomes that any reasonable person would appreciate and you choose to ignore them, then you could be said to be acting immorally.

But simply saying that it can’t be done because ‘there is a Law Maker that says so’ isn’t going to fly. You need to back it up. You need to give reasons that the other person will accept. And after you have done so, you are quite entitled to say, sotto voce: ‘and my Law Maker says so too…’

True, dat. (Well, only if you get caught, of course.) Do you think something is immoral only if it has bad outcomes?

It certainly isn’t immoral only if you get caught. It’s immoral if there are negative, or potential negative outcomes. If you shoot someone for fun, it’s immoral. It doesn’t stop being immoral if you miss.

An appeal to Moral Absolutes if I ever heard one.

I’d suggest that they are, all things being equal, universally accepted moral truths.

 

[PRmerger]

Then it sounds like I misunderstand the motivation of interacting with the perpetrator.

It does appear so. :sad_yes:

You ran with the “he’s an psychopathic, antisocial personality in desperate need of psychotropic therapeutic agents” when you should have been all, “Okay. So here’s an example of a person whose morals are different than mine yet uses the same model to achieve a different conclusion.”

Since the person has such a different way of thinking I too would find it agreeable to not continue the discussion with him myself

No, TS. You guys have a very similar way of thinking. You both are appealing to your own sense of morality in order to come to a decision on the morality of an action. You just come to different conclusions about what is moral and what is immoral.

And isn’t that what atheists find all hunky-dory? You do what’s right for you? I’ll do what’s right for me.

 

[PRmerger]

Only if you choose not to live in that society, and to benefit from it. You can’t have it both ways.

Society does NOT have any moral authority over Catholics, epan. That is, if society proclaims that [Action A] is moral, but a person’s conscience informed by Revelation tells her that [Action A] is immoral, she is under no obligation whatsoever to believe [Action A] is moral.

 

[PRmerger]

Those who disagree with this POV would point out the challenge of not using an external moral authority to justify immoral acts.

Would you be one of those who disagrees with my POV?

 

[PRmerger]

I really think that you have this the wrong way around. I’m sure that if someone came to you and said that what you happened to be doing was wrong, you’d want to know on what basis they came to that decision. If they said that they believe in an Absolute Law maker and that Absolute Law maker is a small rock they keep in a box in the spare room, then you would simply ignore them.

True, dat. :yup:

If, however, someone tells you that you are doing something wrong and can offer reasonable explanations as to how they came to that decision and show you that there are negative, or potential negative outcomes, then you, as a reasonable person, can accept or reject those reasons. If there are negative outcomes that any reasonable person would appreciate and you choose to ignore them, then you could be said to be acting immorally.

This sounds suspiciously like an argument for Moral Absolutes.

But simply saying that it can’t be done because ‘there is a Law Maker that says so’ isn’t going to fly. You need to back it up. You need to give reasons that the other person will accept. And after you have done so, you are quite entitled to say, sotto voce: ‘and my Law Maker says so too…’

Funny. * Sotto voce*, eh? Love that–it’s so melodious: sotto voce.

The argument above isn’t a correct distillation of my argument at all.

Right now, all I’m arguing for is the existence of Moral Absolutes. You seem to be on your way to agreeing that they exist.

Yay!!

Else, without the existence of Moral Absolutes one can never present reasoned, valid arguments for why a particular behavior is immoral. All you could do is say, “I find [Activity A] reprehensible. Here’s why…” and the Evil Perpetrator will say, “I don’t.”

It certainly isn’t immoral only if you get caught. It’s immoral if there are negative, or potential negative outcomes. If you shoot someone for fun, it’s immoral. It doesn’t stop being immoral if you miss.

I don’t understand how you’re arguing for the “potentially negative” part. You told me that you wouldn’t consider your son cheating on a test to be immoral if it could be proven that nothing bad happened from the cheating.

So it’s curious that you’re now arguing that something can be immoral even if nothing bad happens, only if something bad could have happened. Cheating on a test is pretty much a catalyst for something bad happening in the future, don’t you think?

I’d suggest that they are, all things being equal, universally accepted moral truths.

 

[epan]

Society does NOT have any moral authority over Catholics, epan. That is, if society proclaims that [Action A] is moral, but a person’s conscience informed by Revelation tells her that [Action A] is immoral, she is under no obligation whatsoever to believe [Action A] is moral.

In theory, perhaps. Try not filing your tax returns for 10 years, and see what happens. There will probably be real consequences.

 

[epan]

Would you be one of those who disagrees with my POV?

I agree with you that there is an external basis for moral authority. however, i also believe that there are numerous examples of the abuse of that authority through interpretation. it happens frequently, and sometimes by those who present themselves as interpreters of that authority, whose guidance we should supposedly follow.

 

[PRmerger]

In theory, perhaps. Try not filing your tax returns for 10 years, and see what happens. There will probably be real consequences.

How did I know we were going to go to “but it’s against the law” arguments. sigh.

Yes, all Catholics are obligated to obey the law of the land.

This, however, is not to be understood as saying that society has any moral authority over me.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with you that there is an external basis for moral authority.

Excellent.

however, i also believe that there are numerous examples of the abuse of that authority through interpretation. it happens frequently, and sometimes by those who present themselves as interpreters of that authority, whose guidance we should supposedly follow.

Sure.

 

[epan]

How did I know we were going to go to “but it’s against the law” arguments. sigh.

Yes, all Catholics are obligated to obey the law of the land.

This, however, is not to be understood as saying that society has any moral authority over me.

Well, yes. A moral authority is based on principles and values. If you reject the principles and values of our form of society and government, then it has no “moral authority” over you.

Do you reject the values of our society?

If you find your personal conduct conforming to those principles and values, then does it not have some authority over you? At least it has some influence, don’t you think?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, yes. A moral authority is based on principles and values. If you reject the principles and values of our form of society and government, then it has no “moral authority” over you.

No. Moral authority is based on obligation. If something has authority over me I am obligated to obey it. Is that not so?

Do you reject the values of our society?

To the degree that they have divorced themselves from the Christian ethos, yes I do reject the values of our society. Indeed I do.

If you find your personal conduct conforming to those principles and values, then does it not have some authority over you? At least it has some influence, don’t you think?

Influence is as different to authority as a romance novel is to Scripture.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It does appear so.
You ran with the “he’s an psychopathic, antisocial personality in desperate need of psychotropic therapeutic agents” when you should have been all

Not quite. I said that it sounds like what is being describe is ASPD (as there seems to be consistency between the ASPD description and the description of the hypothetical person thus far, though my view here would evolve as the scenario becomes more defined). But I thought rehabilitation was a goal in interacting with the person. It appears that it isn’t. It’s sounding like there would be no intent behind a conversation with this person.

“Okay. So here’s an example of a person whose morals are different than mine yet uses the same model to achieve a different conclusion.”

It seems to be an overly broad and not very descriptive model that fits both me and the hypothetical person behind this act. But let’s not put me on trial just yet…

You both are appealing to your own sense of morality in order to come to a decision on the morality of an action. You just come to different conclusions about what is moral and what is immoral. And isn’t that what atheists find all hunky-dory? You do what’s right for you? I’ll do what’s right for me.

Can’t say that I would know. It’s not a view that I’ve echoed here. You may have to ask around a bit more to get general answer to this. But what ever general answer you find keep in mind not every one will fit in that same box.

 

[epan]

No. Moral authority is based on obligation. If something has authority over me I am obligated to obey it. Is that not so?

Sounds like you are making up your own personal definition, which is fine. I believe that the accepted definition of “moral authority”, is a set of principles or values, which underlie our moral code. It is also sometimes defined as, a set of fundamental assumptions which guide our perceptions. Moral authority is independent of any vehicle transmitting the authority, though the vehicle (such as the CC) is said to have moral authority over those who accept it as a vehicle of transmisison.

To the degree that they have divorced themselves from the Christian ethos, yes I do reject the values of our society. Indeed I do.

This is very different from your first position.

Influence is as different to authority as a romance novel is to Scripture.

I think that all you have really said is that you recognize the and accept the Catholic Church as a vehicle for moral authority, and as such you accept it as having moral authority over yourself.

One of the rules, of course, is that such a vehicle has no moral authority over anyone who does not accept it as having such. The CC’s opinion is a voice to be considered, as any other voice, in our secular society.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s sounding like there would be no intent behind a conversation with this person.

And that, my friend, is exactly why your paradigm allows evil to persist.

You are proclaiming the inutility of dialogue with someone who thinks a heinous act is absolutely fine?

If you cannot be in a dialogue with someone whose morals are the antithesis of yours, then what hope do we have to stop evil in our world?

It seems to be an overly broad and not very descriptive model that fits both me and the hypothetical person behind this act. But let’s not put me on trial just yet… Can’t say that I would know. It’s not a view that I’ve echoed here. You may have to ask around a bit more to get general answer to this. But what ever general answer you find keep in mind not every one will fit in that same box.

Fair enough.

Are you, too, of the position that there are Moral Absolutes?

 

[PRmerger]

Sounds like you are making up your own personal definition, which is fine.

Actually, no.

I am simply condensing that which philosopher Peter Kreeft espouses here.

I believe that the accepted definition of “moral authority”, is a set of principles or values, which underlie our moral code. It is also sometimes defined as, a set of fundamental assumptions which guide our perceptions. Moral authority is independent of any vehicle transmitting the authority, though the vehicle (such as the CC) is said to have moral authority over those who accept it as a vehicle of transmisison.

Source for this, please?

 

[PRmerger]

This is very different from your first position.

How so?

Perhaps it would be helpful if you articulated what you think my “first position” was.

I think that all you have really said is that you recognize the and accept the Catholic Church as a vehicle for moral authority, and as such you accept it as having moral authority over yourself.

Not sure about this yet. Could you expound what you mean?

For, of course, I am certain that it goes without saying that you know that God is the Catholic’s ultimate moral authority, yes?

And if we understand that the Catholic Church is His Body, then there is no differentiation between God, its head, ahd the CC, its Body.

One of the rules, of course, is that such a vehicle has no moral authority over anyone who does not accept it as having such. The CC’s opinion is a voice to be considered, as any other voice, in our secular society.

That’s like saying Shakespeare is a voice to be considered, as any other voice, in interpreting Macbeth. Yes? Good analogy?

 

[epan]

Actually, no.

I am simply condensing that which philosopher Peter Kreeft espouses here.

Source for this, please?

OK, so Kreeft’s view resonates with you.

Here is one example, there are many along the same lines, if you google about, from a variety of sources. They all coalesce on the same basic idea.

definitions.uslegal.com/m/moral-authority/

Moral Authority Law & Legal Definition

Moral authority is an philosophical concept that should serve as a basis for, but is not in itself a rule of written law. The moral authority and legitimacy of law can be based on metaphysics or religion, on nature, on some aspect of society, or on the individual. It may be referred to as a “higher law”, involving right reason, which calls a person to the performance of their duties and restrains them from doing wrong.

Constitutional democracy combines qualitative, substantive, “higher law” concepts of justice and universal equality derived primarily from classical civilization and Judeo-Christian religion with quantitative, procedural concepts of justice and equality derived primarily from the communitarian ethic of common law, republican traditions, and social contract theory.

 

[trevor1055]

Too many individuals in Western society have embraced the post-modernity of Michel Foucault, even if they don’t realize it. Foucault’s deconstruction of societal norms, i.e. Knowledge/Power, etc., rule the day for you folks. We Catholics do not subscribe to such, and I imagine you get my drift. To the OP, If you want me to elaborate, I will, but I doubt it is necessary.

 

[PRmerger]

OK, so Kreeft’s view resonates with you.

Yep. Are you familiar with him, epan?

The link also served another purpose. I object to your assertion that I was just making up my “own personal definition”.

Here is one example, there are many along the same lines, if you google about, from a variety of sources. They all coalesce on the same basic idea.

definitions.uslegal.com/m/moral-authority/

And this is different from what I’ve said, how?