Why is a judge necessary for morality? A judge isn’t obviously necessary for determining mathematical truth. Maybe mathematical truth is like moral truth.If you’ve not read much on the need for something transcendental to have morality I’d suggest reading on the subject. In one way it is as simple as who would be the judge of an act? If it is simply me or a group of men then it is nothing more than my reason or a vote. That isn’t morality.
It is foundational to my thinking. It’s where I start my ethics.I do not think it is self-evident that people have intrinsic worth.
In the first paragraph I asked who has moral authority and how we know this.So, you are saying that the only people with any morality in the world are those who accept the Church? Do I understand you correctly? Is every system of morality baseless except the Church’s?
So I’m going to assume by your post that you must believe that abortion causes a higher risk for breast cancer right? I can point to about 20 times more/better evidence of that, than you can that two lesbians are better parents than a heterosexual couple in principle.Entirely untrue, lock, stock and barrel. A loving home is not gender specific. Studies are showing that children raised by two females do better on every measure of mental health than their peers raised in any other gender permutation. This is presumably because women tend to be more nurturing than men.
Should we ban heterosexual couples from raising children for this reason? I think not. It turns out that even if a household is not the very best environment that it could be for children, that they can still be raised with love and guidance.
All this time, there has been the assumption, based on ignorance, that a heterosexual household was that most healthy for children. But then, this assumption was made by heterosexuals, wasn’t it? Now that the data are improving, we are finding otherwise.
Can you provide a framework or actual example of an “absolute moral metaphysic”? I think human history contains too many experiments that turned out to be failures. What I’ve seen over the last 40 years were attempts (some still ongoing) to destroy the basic building block of rational societies: marriage. The Pill, The Sexual Revolution (pleasure is first, which leads to casual sex or meaningless ‘just sex’), the National Organization for Women providing, as an institution, a reason for women to distrust all men and to encourage separation as opposed to solving the very real problems that exist between men and women. The hyper-sexualization of most media - pleasure is job one.There are no definitive teachings in secular society, save the categorical imperative: the belief in the dignity and worth of every human being, and our inherant duty to preserve that dignity and to protect and allow total individual autonomy, except when it interferes with the autonomy of others.
How the individual autonomy is balanced with societal stability and function is a matter of pragmatism. Determinations should be made to this end, based on the empirical results from social experiments.
This isn’t really what I see the Catholic Church becoming very involved in, except for articulating proclaiming and defending the Categorical Imperative, as John Paul II and Jacques Maritain accomplished so well. How badly these principles need to be articulated, especially as they concern the unborn children in our society!
This is an entirely different topic (which if you want me to pursue it, let me know and I’ll start a new thread), but I find that an absolute moral metaphysic can be derived from reason and human will alone. God and Church are unnecessary.
Entirely untrue, lock, stock and barrel. A loving home is not gender specific. Studies are showing that children raised by two females do better on every measure of mental health than their peers raised in any other gender permutation. This is presumably because women tend to be more nurturing than men.
More Mudgely nonsense.Entirely untrue, lock, stock and barrel. A loving home is not gender specific. Studies are showing that children raised by two females do better on every measure of mental health than their peers raised in any other gender permutation. This is presumably because women tend to be more nurturing than men.
Should we ban heterosexual couples from raising children for this reason? I think not. It turns out that even if a household is not the very best environment that it could be for children, that they can still be raised with love and guidance.
All this time, there has been the assumption, based on ignorance, that a heterosexual household was that most healthy for children. But then, this assumption was made by heterosexuals, wasn’t it? Now that the data are improving, we are finding otherwise.
A study of Australian primary school children from three family types (married heterosexual couples, cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual couples) found that in every area of educational endeavour (language, mathematics, social studies, sport, class work, sociability and popularity, and attitudes to learning), children from married heterosexual couples performed better than the other two groups.
I’m happy to answer but it would be nice if you could answer my original questions about what constitutes a moral authority.Why is a judge necessary for morality? A judge isn’t obviously necessary for determining mathematical truth. Maybe mathematical truth is like moral truth.
Why?I have greater outrage at mathematical errors than moral errors.
When I think about my moral failings and my mathematical failings, it is my mathematical failings that cause me greater shame.Why?
I don’t think this is the right question. The burden of proof is on the advocate of social change, not on others. Your question has been carefully exploited to put on the defensive those who oppose the change. So your question should be “Why SS‘M’?" [same-sex ‘marriage’] Be that as it may, here is a four-part presentation on “Why not?”, and none of the reasons are religious. Each part is about 15 minutes:Alright, the contraception question I asked you answered. That made some sense, so I can imagine why you don’t like gay activity or why you don’t do gay marriage.
But what about people who aren’t Catholic? They get divorced and do all kinds of other things that you don’t agree with. Why can’t two men get together and the state can call it marriage or whatever else they like? They do this sort of thing anyway about divorce, with a lot less arguments and protests from you guys.
Why should you care if other religions want to recognize gay marriage?
What about gay adoption? Why not allow it for limited cases, to see what effect it has, and if its a good idea overall, or not?
I see things in the exact opposite way. If there’s no apparent good reason against trying something, I say we should try it.I don’t think this is the right question. The burden of proof is on the advocate of social change, not on others. Your question has been carefully exploited to put on the defensive those who oppose the change.
That’s obviously not entirely true. Perhaps you believe that saying 2+2=5 might be a more shameful failing than stealing a cookie from a cookie jar. But saying that 2+2=5 is a greater failing to you than intentionally or accidentally hitting a man in your car is obviously untrue.When I think about my moral failings and my mathematical failings, it is my mathematical failings that cause me greater shame.
This is probably subjective. How we feel about morality and mathematics shouldn’t determine their objectivity or origin.
But I’m going to start a thread on this, because it’s a very interesting topic, and appeals to my Spinozistic/Platonic tendencies.
I agree. There are mortal and venial mathematical sins, just as there are mortal and venial moral sins.That’s obviously not entirely true. Perhaps you believe that saying 2+2=5 might be a more shameful failing than stealing a cookie from a cookie jar. But saying that 2+2=5 is a greater failing to you than intentionally or accidentally hitting a man in your car is obviously untrue.
This hypothetical case makes me think of the tale of Archimedes, when confronting the Roman soldier. He did not object to what the soldier did to his friends or family or might do to him. He instead remarks: “Don’t disturb my circles!”I can’t imagine Albert Einstein (a German Jew and a mathematician during the height of Nazi persecution as we all know) hanging around in the Third Reich and saying to the SS men breaking down his door “you’re welcome to beat me to a pulp, but please don’t touch my mathematical formulae.”
If you are dead, you cannot do work.I think life-and-limb was higher on his list of priorities than his groundbreaking work, and he got out of Dodge, rightly so.
I have done worse things than steal cookies from a cookie jar.
- I agree. There are mortal and venial mathematical sins, just as there are mortal and venial moral sins.
3.Mistakes like 1+1=3 are venial; minus-sign errors are fairly minor as well (but risk grave matter); but mistakes that show a deep misunderstanding of the universe. If God exists, he should be just as angry about these mistakes, because they show a flawed understanding of his nature and creative purpose.
- But the one mistake in my life I regret the most is attempting to publish a paper where the Einstein B coefficient for stimulated emission was neglected.
But these are just feelings. Objective determinations are more important. I just don’t see how to make such determinations in this case.
- Treating error as truth is one of the worst things someone can do, in my mind. To try to force a wrong proof to work, or to cheat the data to make it fit your own ideas; this feels as bad to me as intentional murder.
- This hypothetical case makes me think of the tale of Archimedes, when confronting the Roman soldier. He did not object to what the soldier did to his friends or family or might do to him. He instead remarks: “Don’t disturb my circles!”
- If you are dead, you cannot do work.
It is one definition of insanity … doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result.…See my motto from Post #96:
"My motto:
When in doubt, do it again.
Maybe something different will happen the second time."
Maybe this is reckless, …
Then there is Victor Klemperer:It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background. If that were so, the movement would be much less dangerous than it is.” – Hayek, F. A., Road to Serfdom, Chapter 12. “The Socialist Roots of Nazism”.
… They [the intelligencia] were the guilty party, not the ordinary Germans. Given the opportunity to mete out punishment after it’s all over, he wrote the following in one of his published diaries, I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years 1933-1941:
If one day the fate of the vanquished lay in my hands, then I would let all the ordinary folk go and even some of the leaders, who might perhaps after all have had honorable intentions and not known what they were doing. But I would have all the intellectuals strung up, and the professors three feet higher than the rest; they would be left hanging from the lampposts for as long as was compatible with hygiene.
“Heil Professor!” by Phil Orenstein
Maybe you need to do some research. You can start with the videos.Maybe we’ll learn something.
“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in numerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” – Historian Paul Johnson
//. If God exists, he should be just as angry about these mistakes, because they show a flawed understanding of his nature and creative purpose.]So, those among us who are, shall we say, ‘mathematically challenged’ and who make mistakes, will incur God’s wrath? You also assume a direct connection between mathematical understanding and understanding of God’s nature and creative purpose.
Treating error as truth is one of the worst things someone can do, in my mind. To try to force a wrong proof to work, or to cheat the data to make it fit your own ideas; this feels as bad to me as intentional murder.
Rule 1: Let society evolve without government intervention.…
-]Rule 1: Start small.
Rule 2: Make sure there isn’t already a good reason not to do something before doing it.
/-]