Why are discussions about morality so futile?

[PRmerger]

I’m not a consequentialist , but consequences are not completely irrelevant either. Consequences also are not the only consideration.

Excellent.

So we are both agreed that there are some things that are wrong, regardless of the consequences, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, so if the person giving beatings is of a different religious, philosophical, or ideological view that the person that is trying to convince him to change his stance on beatings using arguments from that religion, philosophy, ideology might not be effective. But where there is an overlap in these or values then there may be a point on which to start a discussion. (I’m taking a cognitive approach here).

Sure. I can (and do) argue against abortion without ever, once, appealing to God, religion, Catholicism, Jesus, Scripture.

But, in the end, when a person is adamantine that abortion is moral, what needs to be appealed to is Objective Morality.

It is always wrong, in all places, and at all times, to kill an innocent human person.

That is an Objective Moral Truth.

And one cannot argue (here, argue is not synonymous with “quarrel”) his position without understanding that there is an Objective Moral Truth.

For all that will happen is the pro-abortionist is simply going to say, “Since you and I don’t believe in an OMT, you cannot argue against my position. It’s like your liking chocolate and my liking vanilla. There is no truth as to what is the best ice cream flavor. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder.”

 

[PRmerger]

To show the person that has been giving beatings that his position is inconsistent you would first need to have an understanding for his position. If you want to reference God in this discussion you would also need to understand his god-concept.

No. I am saying that *your *position is inconsistent, not the Beater.

You cannot tell someone that what he is doing is wrong, while also saying, “I don’t believe there are things that are Objectively Wrong”.

 

[PRmerger]

Just keep in mind that the argument “because God says so” is not intellectually defensible to someone who doesn’t believe in your particular God, or isn’t convinced that you’ve proven it.

You are correct.

Mere consistency in your beliefs is not enough, though consistency is laudable in many people’s minds, even if one is “wrong, but consistent.”

The question that some of us here are trying to address is how to speak of morality when the statement “because God says so” – or because Allah says so – is not admissible. In a pluralistic society, an appeal to divine authority is not permissible as a way of settling the issue.

But an appeal to an Absolute Morality is indeed permissible.

And, I argue, absolutely required if one is to argue against any evil act.

If there is no morality without appeals to God, then we are in trouble – because God can’t be proven, except in the eyes of those who already believe. Also, because there are competing visions of God, competing religions, each which is convinced that it is right – none of which is convincing to the other.

But there also is no arguing against immoral acts without appeals to Absolute Morality.

I can say that, personally, I no longer trouble myself as to whether the acts of something like that which happened in Boston, for example, is wrong in the eyes of the cosmos, of the universe. I really don’t care; that’s irrelevant to me. The swift, decisive response to those acts showed that this behavior was absolutely unacceptable, a kind of poison or cancer to the life of a society. What’s more, it was in no one’s interest – for survival of self, and of loved ones – to allow or permit such behavior.

Indeed.

An argument for an Absolute Moral Truth if I ever heard one.

But those boys appear to have done what they did, however, misguided, in the name of what they believed to be an absolute morality, divinely sanctioned.

Wow. Just wow.

I am absolutely astonished at your claim to be able to judge men’s hearts/minds/motives…

based on what you read on the internet.

Regardless, even if you are correct and these suspects did what they did because they believed God told them to do this…the Catholic’s response is: they are wrong. They have divorced themselves from the Absolute Truth.

Your response has to be: different stroke for different folks since there is no absolute truth.

And these common values needn’t be metaphysically grounded; for example, having a fire department that extinguishes fires, instead of starting them; or a medical profession that heals patients, instead of harming them further, is based on common interests and common values. No appeal to God is necessary.

I would be ever so happy if you were to acknowledge this: there is an Absolute Moral Law.

And, yes, no appeal to God would be necessary for you to say this.

 

[Jeanne1184]

I’ve come to see ‘morals’ as being from “outside-in”. The commandments come from the outside, as do laws.

The object is to act from the inside-out by aligning with the Holy Spirit. When one has the Internal Reference, outside rules/laws etc. are no longer needed. We go from the 10 commandments under the Law to the 2 commandments of Christ. Living the two commandments of Christ are not possible without the Holy Spirit.

Instead of pushing against my evil shadow - or conforming to it - it is a matter of aligning my Will with the Holy Spirit.

Saying I once saw: “Morals: What one gets when one doesn’t have guts enough to do what gave them morals in the first place.”

I was a virgin with strong morals in that regard from lots of Catholic education, until I got guts enough to have sex outside of marriage. Then that moral underwent a change. I was still moral because I wasn’t charging money. Stealing undergoes similar ‘adjustments’.

Another shocker of practicing ‘know thyself’ was to discover that I wasn’t ‘good for Goodness sake’ - I was ‘good’ because the consequences of being bad were more than I wanted to endure. I didn’t steal because I didn’t covet - I didn’t steal because I feared embarrassment/humiliation/jail if I did steal and got caught.

Morality isn’t Holiness - but morality allows for civilized behavior to exist, if enough people agree to be moral.

Morals aren’t from a fixed point. “Sliding-scale morality” is the nature of the concept. Motives are of no concern to the moral person - the chief one being that of ‘being better than’ someone else with a lower moral point on a given issue.

These are just some observations made on the Quest…I’m still learning.

In Light and Love,

Jeanne

 

[tonyrey]

Welcome to the forum, Jeanne!

I’ve come to see ‘morals’ as being from “outside-in”. The commandments come from the outside, as do laws.

 

[Bradski]

How do you know the foundations are solid?

They’re the same as yours, so I hope they’re OK. If they’re not, we’re both in trouble. Do no harm. Treat others as you wish to be treated. The categorical imperative. You get yours ready-made, pre-assembled, delivered by the church. I have to put mine together myself. But they are the same.

So here’s where the inconsistency lies, Bradski. Cheating always involves “potential negative effects.” Right? Don’t you agree that each and every time someone cheats that it’s possible for there to be some negative effects?

There’s actually inconsistency in those two statements. But I agree with the second. There is almost invariably negative outcomes that involve a second party if someone cheats. That’s why it is generally immoral. But you can cheat yourself as I have explained previously – breaking the rules of a game when you are just playing yourself. You cheat, but the outcome is inconsequential. So there is no immorality involved.

 

[PRmerger]

They’re the same as yours, so I hope they’re OK. If they’re not, we’re both in trouble. Do no harm. Treat others as you wish to be treated. The categorical imperative. You get yours ready-made, pre-assembled, delivered by the church. I have to put mine together myself. But they are the same.

No, Bradski. Those are not your foundation. The foundation is, in this analogy, the scaffold you use to get up the mountain, right? The mountain peak is a moral society. The actions you describe above are the result of having a firm foundation or scaffold, allowing you to climb the mountain.

But what is your scaffold in this analogy?

 

[PRmerger]

There’s actually inconsistency in those two statements. But I agree with the second. There is almost invariably negative outcomes that involve a second party if someone cheats. That’s why it is generally immoral. But you can cheat yourself as I have explained previously – breaking the rules of a game when you are just playing yourself. You cheat, but the outcome is inconsequential. So there is no immorality involved.

I am utterly confused as to how you come to a decision that a potentially negative outcome to yourself is inconsequential.

Or am I not distilling your position correctly?

 

[Bradski]

No, Bradski. Those are not your foundation. The foundation is, in this analogy, the scaffold you use to get up the mountain, right? The mountain peak is a moral society. The actions you describe above are the result of having a firm foundation or scaffold, allowing you to climb the mountain. But what is your scaffold in this analogy?

OK, the analogy is getting too fuzzy. Just think that the higher you get the more moral you become. Likewise me. But whatever you are using to get up there is supplied by the church. I have to build my own. But the lower reaches, the base, the foundation, whatever image you want to use, is common to almost everyone. Do no harm. Treat others etc.

There are structures already set up in place and there are people touting each structure as the best way to reach the heights. The base of each of these seems to be just like the one I’d build myself but I’m not sure. I’m a bit sceptical with the touts. You know what it’s like if you go overseas and you wander around a new city? You might get a few people coming up to you and telling you that they know the best places to go. They know the best ways to get around. They seem to have available just what I’m looking for. Come with me…this way…let me show you the best way. But most of them don’t really know what I’m looking for. To be honest, I’m not sure myself sometimes. So I prefer to make my own way.

Likewise with the structures. They look OK. They seem to offer what I’m looking for. But if I do it myself, it may take longer and it may not look so nice and I’ll probably make some mistakes building it. But I know that when it’s in place it’ll be as solid as anyone could need.

I am utterly confused as to how you come to a decision that a potentially negative outcome to yourself is inconsequential.

If there are no negative outcomes, then what’s occurred is inconsequential. If we need to keep with the cheating analogy, then if I’m playing golf by myself and decide I want to get to the club house a bit quicker (thirsty work, golf), then I might play off the ladies tee as opposed to the members. That’s cheating, but hey, no big deal. But if I carded my score and I dropped my handicap because I cheated, then it would be different.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Excellent.

So we are both agreed that there are some things that are wrong, regardless of the consequences, yes?

It’s possible to behave in a manner that graces or violates ethical boundaries without there being negative consequences being introduced as a result of the act.

But, in the end, when a person is adamantine that abortion is moral, what needs to be appealed to is Objective Morality.

I’ve never heard any one argue that it’s moral. Though I’ve heard people argue that it’s not a moral concern (amoral). But I’ll ignore the difference for now.

It is always wrong, in all places, and at all times, to kill an innocent human person.

That is an Objective Moral Truth.

And one cannot argue (here, argue is not synonymous with “quarrel”) his position without understanding that there is an Objective Moral Truth.

…as I understand it the principal of double-effect[1] may allow for actions that result in the death of an innocent. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy one can have their fallopian tube containing the fetus removed. This will result in the death of the fetus. Though in this situation doing nothing will also result in the death of the fetus (and possibly the mother).

Another response to this problem is an abotion. Prescription of either response (fallopian removal or abortion) for this situation may both be motivated by a desire to preserve the mother’s life. It appears that the desire to assist the fetus in developing to sustainability may not be actionable for this situation.

Can’t say that I completely understand why one response is considered more moral than the other since either invariably results in the death of the fetus.

For all that will happen is the pro-abortionist is simply going to say, “Since you and I don’t believe in an OMT, you cannot argue against my position. It’s like your liking chocolate and my liking vanilla. There is no truth as to what is the best ice cream flavor. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder.”

I see this as being an example of people with two different philosophies/ideologies not being able to use concepts that are mutually exclusive to their philosophy/ideology to convince each other.

1 - Summa Theologica (IIa-IIæ Q. 64, art 7) - “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental.”

 

[PRmerger]

If there are no negative outcomes, then what’s occurred is inconsequential.

Just so I can be clear about your position: is your criterion that there are no negative outcomes, or no *potentially *negative outcomes?

Because sometimes you add “potentially” to your position. But in the above comment you did not.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s possible to behave in a manner that graces or violates ethical boundaries without there being negative consequences being introduced as a result of the act.

Indeed. So some things are always wrong, no matter what the consequences? They are just intrinsically immoral.

Yes?

 

[Bradski]

Just so I can be clear about your position: is your criterion that there are no negative outcomes, or no *potentially *negative outcomes?

Because sometimes you add “potentially” to your position. But in the above comment you did not.

Potentially.

 

[PRmerger]

've never heard any one argue that it’s moral.

I just googled, “Is abortion sometimes a moral choice”?

Here’s someone who argues yes: feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/02/23/abortion-is-a-moral-good/

And someone else: berthoudrecorder.com/2013/01/11/abortion-is-moral/

And yet another person: debate.org/opinions/is-abortion-moral

I get that you don’t wish to pursue this tributary.

I was just saying…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Indeed. So some things are always wrong, no matter what the consequences? They are just intrinsically immoral.

Yes?

I’m not sure about the intrinsic part. But under other ethical systems of evaluation an action may be considered moral or immoral because it seems to embody respect of disregard for some value. For example, under a system of virtue ethics a person may value honesty and see any act of dishonesty as bad regardless of whether or not the instance of dishonesty has consequences (or even when that honesty will have a consequence!).

 

[allhers]

I think you misunderstand the nature of Christian Morality.

“You shall follow the law that is written on your hearts”. The Old Testament, the Covenant of Moses gave to Israel a Law written in Stone, and expounded upon by the High Priests. It was legalistic, and prohibitive. It was about obedience to that law.

The Christian Covenant has but 2 Laws:

1. Love the Lord your God with All your Heart, All your Soul, and All your Strength.
2. Love your neighbour as yourself.

The moral Law written on our hearts is, in Catholic Theology, referred to as “Natural Law”.
This is derived from looking at the world around us and what the Lord has revealed to us in His Creation, and it is further informed by what he has revealed to us in His Word.

The examples set in the Old Testament tell of a pedagogical period where the Lord was educating His People and bringing them to the point of the Coming of the Messiah.
We are no longer in that time.

When the church tells us that some act is Intrinsically Evil, it is with good cause and with direct attributable harm caused to the sinner, the victim of the sin, or to society as a whole.

If something is defined as a sin that is because it either causes harm, or has unmitigated and unreasonably high chance of causing harm. This could be to the sinner, a third party or to the broader society.

We have discussed one or two areas in detail in the past, but if my memory serves me correctly you have tended to directly reject our arguments about the direct or indirect harms caused or in some cases called significant harms “good”. There is a significant frame of reference issue causing part of this. You and I currently lack the ability to see certain issues from the same viewpoint or to consider some of the others views as valid. this causes severe difficulty in reaching any form of meaningful resolution to those discussions.

I hope and pray that the reason you are on this forum is that at some level you are truly open to learning and changing your views. I pray the Lord will work in your heart and lead you to His Grace.

On the topic of Obedience. the current teaching of the Catholic Church is clear that blind obedience does not mitigate ones culpability for committing a gravely immoral act. One is subject to the guidance of your own conscience, but that must be properly formed and informed.

I thought this answer was excellent, would have been what I would have wanted to say, if I were so informed. Especially that last paragraph. (That much I might have been able to handle.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

They’re the same as yours, so I hope they’re OK. If they’re not, we’re both in trouble. Do no harm. Treat others as you wish to be treated. The categorical imperative. You get yours ready-made, pre-assembled, delivered by the church. I have to put mine together myself. But they are the same.

Not quite. Mat. 22, 34-40 " The Greatest Commandment.* 34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them [a scholar of the law]* tested him by asking, 36 “Teacher,* which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him,* “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it:* You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40* The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

And the reason why there is so much disagreement about the moral law is that Mankind has rejected God and/or Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, through whom God’s moral law is handed on and interpreted.

God intended for the whole human race follow this law. And because it does’nt there is an ever rising discord. All sins distroy the fabric of unity between men and between men and God, leading to evils innumerable and eventual destruction for mankind.

Even " private " sins which do no physical, emotional, economic harm to others and/or do not involve injustice to others, are still deadly to the moral unity of mankind and the relationship of mankind to God.

Thus, the Moral Law is grounded on the Goodness of God, handed on to Jesus Christ who established the Catholic Church, through whom the Holy Spirit interprets the whole Moral Law.

Linus2nd

 

[Bradski]

Not quite.

“You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it:* You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40* The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

Well, yeah, I guess I skipped that first one. But then, it’s not a requirement for living morally. I think most people have already accepted that. Loving God does not necessarily lead to one leading a moral life. You could say that is does, but there is no direct correlation (as there is with the second). I’m sure that we could find some examples of people who professed to follow the first (and apparently greatest) commandment and were not what you and I would class as moral people.

But then, maybe they weren’t ‘true Christians’. Just like all Catholics who have used contraception and perhaps support gay marriages are not ‘true Catholics’. And then again, there are a few billion people who have no interest at all in God or in loving him. And they seem to operate quite well without it.

So it’s a requirement for being a Christian, but not for acting morally. All in all, I think I’m OK ignoring it myself.

 

[Love4All]

Well, yeah, I guess I skipped that first one. But then, it’s not a requirement for living morally. I think most people have already accepted that. Loving God does not necessarily lead to one leading a moral life. You could say that is does, but there is no direct correlation (as there is with the second). I’m sure that we could find some examples of people who professed to follow the first (and apparently greatest) commandment and were not what you and I would class as moral people.

But then, maybe they weren’t ‘true Christians’. Just like all Catholics who have used contraception and perhaps support gay marriages are not ‘true Catholics’. And then again, there are a few billion people who have no interest at all in God or in loving him. And they seem to operate quite well without it.

So it’s a requirement for being a Christian, but not for acting morally. All in all, I think I’m OK ignoring it myself.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.