Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[JDaniel]

Daniel, it’s a thing called “contraception”, ever heard of it?

But I suppose that would be wrong because it’s not natural. For those who are thinking that, what the hell are you doing on the internet? All this is part of God’s plan?

Do you not realize that you came to a Catholic Answers Forum? If not, please allow me to apprise you of that fact.

I’m sure there are many atheist forums you could try to peddle your wares on.

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

Hmmm. Now I am made aware that you didn’t know that the Church considers the purpose of marriage primarily for procreation (and, secondarily for unity). Am I wrong or did you say that you were Catholic at one time, on one of your posts?

No, I’ve never belonged to a religious denomination, or shown interest, for that matter. I’ve always asked “why enforce this?” No religion answers that, unless you consider “God said” to be an appropriate explanation and justification.

As many as they can support and/or as many has her body can handle.

What if humans do eventually become overpopulated? Should we restrict marriage?

I believe Sarpedon asked for my definition of happiness, so here it is: “an emotional feeling that causes one to deem a factor of their life worthy of being kept.” I value eating tasty food, and the satisfaction of that value causes the happiness that encourages the continuation of the element of eating tasty food in my life. Pain (mental pain, I mean) is the opposite: “an emotional feeling that causes one to deem a factor of their life worthy of being omitted.”

 

[JDaniel]

They won’t have their afterlives to do so. If they’re such a problem, why doesn’t God just snap them out of existence, instead of making them suffer in Hell? If he’s going to do something, it might as well be done efficiently.

Once a soul, spirit, or, thetan is produced it cannot be extinguished. It is, from the moment of conception, eternal. If I were God, I would not want someone who does not want to be around me, around me. It’s that simple.

The moron had his whole lifetime to work it through and get it right - right up to the final moments before his death!

Look, God went to the wall for you. Now you want to make Him climb up it!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, I’ve never belonged to a religious denomination, or shown interest, for that matter. I’ve always asked “why enforce this?” No religion answers that, unless you consider “God said” to be an appropriate explanation and justification.

That’s what i would expect to be the appropriate answer from a God-less person.

What if humans do eventually become overpopulated?..

We’d have to find another solution. Annihilation is not an answer.

I am being called to dinner. I’ll be back.

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

That’s what i would expect to be the appropriate answer from a God-less person.

I feel sorry for you, really. I’ve read some of the Summa Theologica, and it says that we should only love humans (nothing about nonhuman animals!) as a means to loving God. Tsk tsk.

I bet you love an alien being more than familiar friends, at least you should, according to Christian doctrine.

We’d have to find another solution. Annihilation is not an answer.

I am being called to dinner. I’ll be back.

jd

I never said annihilation was the answer, but it seems that if we are required to have kids if we’re married, and we shouldn’t have kids because of overpopulation, we should restrict the number of those married, according to your logic.

 

[jmcrae]

I never said annihilation was the answer, but it seems that if we are required to have kids if we’re married, and we shouldn’t have kids because of overpopulation, we should restrict the number of those married, according to your logic.

OR, we could stop having wars in the middle of people’s vegetable gardens and growing fields, so that there wouldn’t be a famine every time some war lord somewhere decides he needs to strut his stuff, and we could stop throwing milk in the garbage to make the price go up, and instead of taking more food than we can eat on to our plates and then throwing it out, we could decide to take only what we need, and use the extra to help our needy neighbors.

This planet, when there are no wars going on and nobody throwing away perfectly good food, can support ten times its current population at the current level of farming technology. People aren’t starving because there isn’t enough food; people are starving because it isn’t politically or economically expedient to get the extra food that we already have to them, instead of either trampling on it or throwing it away.

 

[JDaniel]

I feel sorry for you, really. I’ve read some of the Summa Theologica, and it says that we should only love humans (nothing about nonhuman animals!) as a means to loving God. Tsk tsk.

I bet you love an alien being more than familiar friends, at least you should, according to Christian doctrine.

I never said annihilation was the answer, but it seems that if we are required to have kids if we’re married, and we shouldn’t have kids because of overpopulation, we should restrict the number of those married, according to your logic.

Actually, over dinner, I had a chance to think your proposal over some. You may well have a very interesting point. Utilitarianism might not be all that bad, providing we put in place the “rules-based” version of it. I don’t have time to discuss it right now as I must go some place. I will be back later on to tell you why I think this.

C’ya.

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

This planet, when there are no wars going on and nobody throwing away perfectly good food, can support ten times its current population at the current level of farming technology.

If our population is large enough that we HAVE to eat meat, then there are too many of us.

 

[Oreoracle]

Actually, over dinner, I had a chance to think your proposal over some. You may well have a very interesting point. Utilitarianism might not be all that bad, providing we put in place the “rules-based” version of it. I don’t have time to discuss it right now as I must go some place. I will be back later on to tell you why I think this.

C’ya.

jd

Really? I’m eager to hear why.

Edit: That would be “rule utilitarianism” by the way, as opposed to act/classical.

 

[jmcrae]

If our population is large enough that we HAVE to eat meat, then there are too many of us.

I don’t think we “have” to. It’s the most efficient way to get protein, and it’s easier to store in winter than other kinds of food, but it’s actually an extremely inefficient way to get other nutrients - our diet should consist predominantly of vegetables and fruit, with some starches, and some meats, and some dairy, for a good balance.

 

[agangbern]

The fundamental problem in utilitarianism is two-fold:

1. Happiness is not defined as anything concrete and consistent. It can be understood to be anything.
2. By appealing to “greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people” utilitarianism resorts to a mathematical standard. This is not a good standard. Coupled with the ambiguity listed above, anything can be justified with enough popular support and popular desire.

That standard advocated by utilitarianism would be good if a clear limitation is added to it. It should be limited by, for one, perpetual respect for human life. No matter how great is the happiness that the greatest number of people would benefit, that happiness would be worthless if in attaining it we violate a human life. No one, may he be too old as a financial burden to his family or society, or so “incurably” sick to be taken cared of, no one may just “be thrown into the incinerator” for the happiness of many. That is the limitation that utilitarianism must observe. Respect for human life.

 

[grannymh]

It is better to keep your eyes on the prize.

I’m over my cranky mood and simply can’t resist taking the above quote out of context. Just have to point out that St. Paul said the same thing.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[grannymh]

The difference is that utilitarianism has no defined boundaries, while many religions like Catholicism do.

Catholicism teaches that it is never moral to take another’s life unless it is the minimum response necessary for self-defense. Even then, conditions still apply. If you are going to kill a political leader that has been doing crimes serious enough to warrant his or her assassination, you still need to have a plan of how to stabilize the country afterward. You can’t just kill him or her and let the country fall into chaos. There are many more examples like this.

The above is only an example of a more general approach. Catholicism and several other religions provide clear guidelines on what is moral, how to factor in special conditions, the steps that need to be taken to ensure justice, etc. In a confusing world, these guidelines are necessary to keep things in bounds.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, does not have these bounds. There is a general principal of “greatest happiness for the greatest number of people,” but no absolute guidelines on how to put this into effect. It is impossible to fully gauge the full effects of any one action (would you run a poll before every action?). Furthermore, “happiness” cannot be easily defined for the masses (most Germans were happy with Hitler, even to the bitter end).

All of these ambiguities in utilitarianism mean that utilitarianism is not a stable foundation for society. You yourself said that your moral opposition to the Holocaust is only your personal conviction. The German state had a very different opinion. If “all you can do” is try to convince the German state that their actions are wrong, you should not be surprised if the German state tries to convince you that their actions are right. See where this is going?

Utilitarians think that “the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people” is in everyone’s self-interest. They think that people will recognize this and will thus try to support their own and everyone else’s happiness. The problem is that happiness is not defined. What if the vast majority of people would receive great happiness by eliminating the small, inferior races? Mathematically, the overall level of happiness may be greater if the “inferior” races are eliminated, due to the larger numbers of the majority doing the ethnic cleansing. Any other issue could be substituted for race and be justified by the mathematical result.

The fundamental problem in utilitarianism is two-fold:

1. Happiness is not defined as anything concrete and consistent. It can be understood to be anything.
2. By appealing to “greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people” utilitarianism resorts to a mathematical standard. This is not a good standard. Coupled with the ambiguity listed above, anything can be justified with enough popular support and popular desire.

This is also a very good explanation of relativism. Thank you.

In my opinion, your 1) is a good way of defining objective morality. Objective morality has to be concrete and consistent in order to work even though there will be individual interpretations, exceptions, etc. When morality can be understood to be anything, it becomes anything which eventually leads to chaos.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Sarpedon]

I believe Sarpedon asked for my definition of happiness, so here it is: “an emotional feeling that causes one to deem a factor of their life worthy of being kept.”

Slavery meant that rich plantation owners did not have to work and feel pain in the fields. Furthermore, they could make huge profits without doing any significant work to earn them. Having an easy life and lots of money was undoubtedly a very positive “emotional feeling” which would encourage the owners to keep slavery as a “factor of their life.”

Of course, there were far more slaves suffering than owners benefiting. I suppose you could argue that since the majority was not happy, “greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people” would not apply in this case. Would you agree that a reasonable thing, according to your theory, for the slaves to do would be to rise in revolt and put the white owners (not other whites) in slavery? This would feel very vindictive, and would mean that the black majority would not have to work hard. This would be a positive “emotional feeling” that would be worth “being kept.” Since the blacks were in the majority, wouldn’t this be a case of “greatest happiness for the greatest number of people?”

I would still like to see your take on the second issue in utilitarianism: is mathematical majority a reliable standard in ethics?

Utilitarianism is the seed from which ideologies like communism can emerge. Utilitarianism treats ethics on the societal scale. Utilitarianism is concerned with the happiness of the majority, or most of society. Catholic ethics is concerned with the happiness and rights of the individual person and only secondarily society. If ethics is applied to the societal level before inalienable rights are determined on the individual level, it can become permissable to sacrifice individuals for the sake of the “the greatest number of people.”

This is exactly what communism did. Communists thought that it was morally acceptable to do conventionally immoral things to individuals for the sake of the societal majority. If we are concerned with happiness for a mathematical majority, and have not already established absolute moral rights for individuals, individual “rights” can be sacrificed in order to bring about “the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.”

Catholic ethics are much different. Catholic ethics looks first at the individual. Once the proper conduct and rights of the individual are established, we can then look at the societal level and determine what societal practices promote human rights and security. If this stage is skipped, as in utilitarianism, the question of absolute individual rights has not been established. Of course, it is not hard to ignore or sacrifice something that has not been established in the first place.

Do you believe that individuals have any absolute rights that cannot be morally impinged upon, even for the “greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people?” If yes, how do you determine what these rights are?

In short, the problem with utilitarianism is that it looks at the happiness of the majority before it looks at the happiness (and rights) of the individual. This leads to compromise of the individual for the sake of the majority.

 

[Sarpedon]

That standard advocated by utilitarianism would be good if a clear limitation is added to it. It should be limited by, for one, perpetual respect for human life. No matter how great is the happiness that the greatest number of people would benefit, that happiness would be worthless if in attaining it we violate a human life. No one, may he be too old as a financial burden to his family or society, or so “incurably” sick to be taken cared of, no one may just “be thrown into the incinerator” for the happiness of many. That is the limitation that utilitarianism must observe. Respect for human life.

There is not necessarily a foundation for this in utilitarianism. If a utilitarian starts to incorporate absolute laws that are outside of utilitarianism, they are de facto admitting that utilitarianism is not sufficient.

 

[grannymh]

I guess humanism is in many ways compatible with religion and vice-versa. I think that there have been many Catholic humanists.

jd

Compatible? It depends on one’s definition of religion. If religion means having something to do with the supernatural such as God, then the American Humanist Association specifically excludes religion.

The most well-known Catholic humanist is Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) who wrote the essay Utopia. Many of the values of early humanism still exist and should be promoted as are the similar values of Christianity.

However, when a group such as the American Humanist Association outright attacks Christian beliefs with a public ad campaign, “Why believe in a god?” and then on its website offers lots of reasons not to believe in God, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not compatible with Christianity.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[grannymh]

That standard advocated by utilitarianism would be good if a clear limitation is added to it. It should be limited by, for one, perpetual respect for human life. No matter how great is the happiness that the greatest number of people would benefit, that happiness would be worthless if in attaining it we violate a human life. No one, may he be too old as a financial burden to his family or society, or so “incurably” sick to be taken cared of, no one may just “be thrown into the incinerator” for the happiness of many. That is the limitation that utilitarianism must observe. Respect for human life.

Respect for human life is the basis for objective morality.

All human life is worthy of profound respect is objective truth.

All human life is sacred is the reason why human life is worthy of profound respect.

I believe this from the bottom of my feet to the top of my head which is why I often use some form as part of my signature.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Tamsulosin]

Let’s follow a less complicated reasoning as to why God is the Moral Authority.

Humans are born with a sense of conscience.Parents may cultivate the desirable traits in us for further virtue. But this discerning and realization, this “sensor” that indicates us that we have commited a good or a bad act, comes encoded in our genes,is an ingredient inherent in our being.It is not a learned capacity.Mental illness throws this out of control,but that is an anomaly, a malfunctionong,or imbalance.
(Even animals come with rudimentary consciences.I remember an experiment done with chimpanzee being filmed with a candid camera.Before stealing food from a drawer ,he would look all around to see if there was somebody watching.If nobody was around, he would steal,revealing he knew he was doing something bad).
Since we come with this sensor embedded in us, and nature(us) was created by God,then it follows that He was the One setting the standards and parameters around which our brain operates, the discernment of good and bad within us, hence our Moral Authority. (Author:a writer) He wrote the “program” for our discernment.

 

[agangbern]

There is not necessarily a foundation for this in utilitarianism. If a utilitarian starts to incorporate absolute laws that are outside of utilitarianism, they are de facto admitting that utilitarianism is not sufficient.

Actually, utilitarianism would contradict itself if it says it has no place to an absolute law. For to say so would mean they believe and cherish the absoluteness of utilitarianism. That it is a closed “ism”, no chance for adjustment. To avoid this contradiction, utilitarianism must find a way to adapt to obvious basic absolute law.

 

[grannymh]

Actually, utilitarianism would contradict itself if it says it has no place to an absolute law. For to say so would mean they believe and cherish the absoluteness of utilitarianism. That it is a closed “ism”, no chance for adjustment. To avoid this contradiction, utilitarianism must find a way to adapt to obvious basic absolute law.

I have a way for utilitarians to avoid any and all contradictions. They should join the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.