Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[jmcrae]

Can I ask you a few questions? Would you say that other animals’ lives have intrinsic value? Would you say that plant life has intrinsic value? What’s the difference between a plant that can’t feel, and a human that can’t feel? Both their bodies strive for life, after all.

We find in the Book of Genesis that the animals and the plants were put on the earth for the use of human beings - for food, for service, and for a kind of companionship.

Other human beings were put on the earth for us to love; not to use. Once a human being has been created by God, we are not allowed to kill that person, no matter how inconvenient their continued existence may be to us, and even if they wouldn’t feel a thing, were we to kill them.

 

[agangbern]

I said “in a sense.” Let’s say that a woman would have had a child, but for some reason decided to remain abstinent for the remainder of her life. When she decides to do this, she will prevent the person that would have existed from existing. I guess you can say that she destroyed the possibility of a potential being, so long as she adheres to her abstinence.

No. We cannot even talk about “in a sense” because we cannot establish a sense in it. When a woman decides to abstain, no person is prevented to exist. No one existed yet, so there is no sense of saying that someone is prevented. None is prevented in abstinence. Besides, and this is the most basic part, when we speak of prevention, we refer to the doing of a specific act in order to prevent. But in abstinence no action is done. Therefore no prevention to speak of.

 

[Sarpedon]

Is that what you’d do if an invading army began killing civilians in your country? All life is sacred, guilty or not, and two wrongs don’t make a right, etc. If we truly respect the sanctity of life, it would render us total pacifists; we could not stop the invading army.

Here you say that all life is sacred, but a few posts back you denied believing in absolute human rights.

I would fight in self-defense. This is not contrary to objective absolute moral law at all. It is always an objective wrong to kill someone outside of self-defense. It is also objectively right to defend yourself against attackers, as long as you use the minimum force necessary. You are assuming that all moral objectivists only look at actions in of themselves. Whether killing is objectively right or wrong depends on the circumstance, but this is determined in an absolute manner by God.

There are many different objective laws we could follow. In order to know what the true objective laws are, we need revelation. God takes the consequences and compares them to His nature, and decides what actions in specific situations further His goal. He then reveals this to us as absolute laws that we cannot break, based on His evaluation of the consequences. Your theory is entirely different. Utilitarianism has people evaluate consequences (apparently by flying all over the world and polling everybody for every action, which is absurd), and then bases decisions off of this evaluation of the consequences. People do not have the wisdom or foresight of God, so this analysis will be prone to error. When an error, based off of human analysis of consequences, results in a policy, the policy will support error. An example of this is the Soviet idea that individuals can be sacrificed in the gulags for the glorious new state of man.

There is no reason, other than one based on utility, that we should kill someone who is killing others. Unless you plan on having our army just try to restrain them, and I’m doubting that that would work.

Catholic objective morality, revealed by God, says that it is objectively just to act in self-defense, assuming only the minimum force necessary is inflicted. In fact, self-defense for the sake of another is objectively honorable, so Catholic moral objectivists do have a reason for self-defense based purely on objective morality.

You are creating a straw-man argument because you assume that all moral objectivists maintain absurd objective laws, such as no moral killing in any situation. This is not the case. We know what is objective based on revelation, and that will vary according to religion. We debate religions to determine which has the best claim to speak for God, but this would move off topic.

Come Sarpedon, pain’s for sissies! Let’s die, as brothers-in-arms!

Yes! Let’s die for our conviction that each human life is sacred and has digntity! We will suffer much pain, we may be forced to do the terrible but just act of killing another in self-defense, but at least we will die to uphold justice. We may not have “positive emotions,” but at least we will die in the pursuit of justice.

Another question: is all life sacred, or just human life? What would be the reasoning behind upholding human life as having intrinsic value, but not other animals?

Humans have souls, while animals do not. That being said, God has revealed through Catholicism that we may not cause suffering to animals that is not for a just cause (food is a just cause.)

I’m not saying that every action should be partially selfish, I’m saying that every action is partially selfish.

Ethics is about what we ought to do, not what we actually do. If you think human nature is incapable of climbing above selfishness, then you have a very dim view of human nature. I would urge you to watch a few good war movies.

As for gathering the statistics, I’d have to cross those bridges when I came to them. It’s a necessary difficulty.

In that case, don’t promote utilitarianism in the meantime. If you don’t know how it could actually work, then it’s not complete enough to act as the basis for anything. That would be kind of like saying “I don’t actually know how I could bring about communism justly, but I’ll go around promoting Marx anyway.”

Here are the central problems:

1. Utilitarianism assumes hedonistic “positive feelings” are the greatest things human nature can strive for, which most of us intuitively know to be false.
2. Utilitarianism has no method to actually gauge the “happiness effect” of an action, short of a round-the-world social meeting with everyone for each decision. If utilitarianism is practiced, this lack of a legitimate method of implementation means that political leaders need to make “educated guesses.” If those guesses are off a little bit, terrible things can happen. An ethical system is not supposed to rely on guesswork.
3. Utilitarianism does not believe in objective, unalienable human rights (although Oreoracle does believe that “all life is sacred.”) Since utilitarianism looks at what makes society good at first, rather than starting with individuals and then moving on to societies, utilitarianism does not check the potential for sacrificing the non-established “human rights” for the greater good.

 

[Sarpedon]

Again, sarpedon, isn’t it your experience that everyone is motivated only by their unique desires, wants and emotions?

It is possible for people to be motivated only by their desire for God and for the good. Consider all of the martyrs and war heroes of the past. To say that they chose their painful and terminal actions only to get an emotional “kick” out of being “holy” is incredibly cynical.

Trial and error. We could put things in place. If we get too much distressing feedback, replace it with something better.

It would be a major bummer if I died during the “error” phase. Trial and error doesn’t work so well when millions of people hang in the balance.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’ll reply to you in a bit, Sarpedon. But I was just trying to illustrate your thought process when I said that “life has intrinsic value”, I don’t actually believe it.

 

[Sarpedon]

I’ll reply to you in a bit, Sarpedon. But I was just trying to illustrate your thought process when I said that “life has intrinsic value”, I don’t actually believe it.

You really think pleasure is the only ultimate goal in life?

 

[Oreoracle]

You really think pleasure is the only ultimate goal in life?

I know that I would feel no reason to live without the hope for happiness. Don’t you only pursue God because it makes you happy?

I also believe that the people in those war movies only did what they did either because it made them happy to feel ethically consistent by sacrificing themselves, or because they would have suffered later knowing that they didn’t sacrifice themselves. Their sacrifice is the satisfaction of a value, and is thus somewhat selfish.

 

[Sarpedon]

I know that I would feel no reason to live without the hope for happiness. Don’t you only pursue God because it makes you happy?

Not happiness in the sense of “positive emotions.” I should pursue God because it is my purpose and the only way I can ever be truly fulfilled. The love of God is the only thing that can truly fulfill us, and this love is not warm fuzzies. True love is the willingness to die to yourself for the sake of another, to sacrifice yourself for another, as with Christ. It is only through dying to ourselves that we can find true fulfillment. This is a lot different from pursuing “positive emotions.”

Both Catholics and Utilitarians pursue a fulfillment of our desires. Catholicism looks for this fulfillment in God, while utilitarianism looks to fleeting “positive emotions.” This is the main difference. From my personal experience, I know that positive emotions cannot truly fulfill my deepest desires. Mere pleasure is not enough for man. What we truly seek is the love of God, although we foolishly look for it in pleasure.

I also believe that the people in those war movies only did what they did either because it made them happy to feel ethically consistent by sacrificing themselves, or because they would have suffered later knowing that they didn’t sacrifice themselves. Their sacrifice is the satisfaction of a value, and is thus somewhat selfish.

You don’t think a person can be motivated purely by concern for others? Do you honestly think people can only act in selfish self-interest? Do you find this depressing?

 

[Oreoracle]

Not happiness in the sense of “positive emotions.” I should pursue God because it is my purpose and the only way I can ever be truly fulfilled. The love of God is the only thing that can truly fulfill us, and this love is not warm fuzzies. True love is the willingness to die to yourself for the sake of another, to sacrifice yourself for another, as with Christ. It is only through dying to ourselves that we can find true fulfillment. This is a lot different from pursuing “positive emotions.”

Both Catholics and Utilitarians pursue a fulfillment of our desires. Catholicism looks for this fulfillment in God, while utilitarianism looks to fleeting “positive emotions.” This is the main difference. From my personal experience, I know that positive emotions cannot truly fulfill my deepest desires. Mere pleasure is not enough for man. What we truly seek is the love of God, although we foolishly look for it in pleasure.

You’re confused. The feeling of fulfillment is the positive emotion.

You don’t think a person can be motivated purely by concern for others? Do you honestly think people can only act in selfish self-interest? Do you find this depressing?

Here’s how I believe it works. First, one begins their life completely selfish (in childhood, obviously). It’s not long before one takes conscious note of the pleasure and pain that they feel in life. They then deduce that others must experience these feelings too, and that these feelings must also be significant to them. When one realizes this, one will likely make it their value to please others or reduce their pain. When one acts so as to satisfy this value, they please themselves, making the action somewhat selfish, but the value itself was made out of the want to pleasure others, which is not selfish. I don’t find this depressing.

 

[grannymh]

another question: Is all life sacred, or just human life? What would be the reasoning behind upholding human life as having intrinsic value, but not other animals?

Animal life is definitely worthy of respect and protection. In many ways, animals exhibit qualities like our own. Loyalty is the first which comes to mind. Many animals can relate to humans and live with them in harmony. Animals have a way of teaching us by the way they cherish their young. Some animals serve us as transportation and so on. We do have to uphold their lives as valuable. That is called being responsible stewards of our natural earth. It could be called reciprocation because of the pleasure animals can give us as pets or as sheer magnificence in the wild. Can you tell I have always been a child of nature.

Even with all of the above, you and I know that we are different from animals. We are set apart from the rest of creation. Thus our life is sacred in a different manner than animals. Even those of us who have difficulty with a God concept, know in the deepest part of our being that we, as humans, have intrinsic value and are worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are meant for eternal life.

 

[JDaniel]

Umm…none. The point is that, before 18 weeks’ gestation, a fetus doesn’t feel. It doesn’t desire a thing, so it is impossible to make it suffer, as it has no interests to compromise. It’s body does, but you can’t make a body happy or sad, nor can you value it without feeling to begin with. And I don’t think potentiality should count, because a woman (or man) can destroy a potential being, in a sense, when they decide to remain abstinent.

Well, we might want to be careful here, until we’ve seen all of the evidence. Practicing MD’s have told me that there is lots of movement of the baby prior to 12 weeks old, and, we cannot go by what is called the “quickening” because some women feel nothing almost the whole way through pregnancy. So, this is a detail we’re going to have do more research on before we can decide a verdict.

Caution is the order of the day so that we make no one angry this early in the conversion process.

jd

 

[Sarpedon]

You’re confused. The feeling of fulfillment is the positive emotion.

No, I simply do not believe that true fulfillment comes through having “happy feelings.”

Here’s how I believe it works. First, one begins their life completely selfish (in childhood, obviously). It’s not long before one takes conscious note of the pleasure and pain that they feel in life. They then deduce that others must experience these feelings too, and that these feelings must also be significant to them. When one realizes this, one will likely make it their value to please others or reduce their pain. When one acts so as to satisfy this value, they please themselves, making the action somewhat selfish, but the value itself was made out of the want to pleasure others, which is not selfish. I don’t find this depressing.

Your “value” is positive emotions. My value is union with God. While we are motivated by our desire to “fulfill” ourselves, this fulfillment is found by dying to ourselves for God, as God does for us, and not through emotions. If we are motivated by a partial desire for positive emotions for ourselves and a partial desire for the positive emotions of others, there is a great risk. While positive emotions are not bad and we should want them for ourselves and others, they need to kept within the bounds of the relationship with God. When we seek our own and others “positive emotions” without this check, anything can happen.

 

[JDaniel]

Can I ask you a few questions? Would you say that other animals’ lives have intrinsic value? Would you say that plant life has intrinsic value? What’s the difference between a plant that can’t feel, and a human that can’t feel? Both their bodies strive for life, after all.

Again, I urge caution. L. Ron Hubbard, the now deceased founder of Scientology, performed many, many experiments on plants and believed them to be rudimentarily sentient. They may even feel pain. Until all the research is in, I urge caution here, too.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

It is possible for people to be motivated only by their desire for God and for the good. Consider all of the martyrs and war heroes of the past. To say that they chose their painful and terminal actions only to get an emotional “kick” out of being “holy” is incredibly cynical.

That’s not what I’m suggesting. What I’m suggesting is the under-all motivating factor for almost every action taken by a human being. I am sitting here, typing away not because I have to, but, because I enjoy it. There may be actions that are undertaken by people that are outside of the scope of happy/unhappy, or pain/pleasure but I can’t think of any. Can you?

It would be a major bummer if I died during the “error” phase. Trial and error doesn’t work so well when millions of people hang in the balance.

Yeah, you’ve got a point there that I didn’t think of. Back to the drawing board.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I know that I would feel no reason to live without the hope for happiness. Don’t you only pursue God because it makes you happy?

I also believe that the people in those war movies only did what they did either because it made them happy to feel ethically consistent by sacrificing themselves, or because they would have suffered later knowing that they didn’t sacrifice themselves. Their sacrifice is the satisfaction of a value, and is thus somewhat selfish.

jd

 

[Sarpedon]

That’s not what I’m suggesting. What I’m suggesting is the under-all motivating factor for almost every action taken by a human being. I am sitting here, typing away not because I have to, but, because I enjoy it. There may be actions that are undertaken by people that are outside of the scope of happy/unhappy, or pain/pleasure but I can’t think of any. Can you?

The Crucifixion.

As the perfect man (and God), Christ sets the example for us. I don’t know if anyone has every truly been able to reach the bar that has been set for us, but it is possible. It is very difficult to judge matters of the heart, so it would be hard to tell if someone succeeded or not.

 

[JDaniel]

Not happiness in the sense of “positive emotions.” I should pursue God because it is my purpose and the only way I can ever be truly fulfilled. The love of God is the only thing that can truly fulfill us, and this love is not warm fuzzies. True love is the willingness to die to yourself for the sake of another, to sacrifice yourself for another, as with Christ. It is only through dying to ourselves that we can find true fulfillment. This is a lot different from pursuing “positive emotions.”

Question, Sarp: I assume you do agree that Jesus was a real person, that the historians and reporters of the day didn’t just make him up, right?

If you answer, “yes”, what do you think was the biggest factor underlying Jesus’ motivations? Being scourged, being whipped, being crowned with thorns, having to carry the cross by himself, then, being nailed to the cross. And, that nailing. One nail through the tops of the soles of both feet together - offering no support for the weight of his body. Then, nails through the centers of the palms of each hand, between the metacarpal bones of the four fingers not including the thumb.

There can be no doubt that the pull on the ligaments because of the weight of his body had to cause excruciating pain, right? Without any let up or possibility of let up - just unrelenting pain all the way to his shoulder muscles, his pectoralis muscles and his latissimus dorsi muscles. Pain that shock would not take away because the injury is of a continuous sort, a constant cramping beyond belief.

What would make a man put himself through that? My belief is there was at least one man that lived on this earth that wasn’t motivated by happiness or pleasure. Unless he just didn’t know it was going to be so bad. But he had several chances to get the torture stopped and didn’t. It’s beyond me.

Anyway, I still think most people are motivated by happiness or pleasure leading to happiness.

jd

 

[Sarpedon]

Question, Sarp: I assume you do agree that Jesus was a real person, that the historians and reporters of the day didn’t just make him up, right?

Of course. I am operating within the framework of Catholicism, which has been logically established for me through means not touched on in this thread.

What would make a man put himself through that? My belief is there was at least one man that lived on this earth that wasn’t motivated by happiness or pleasure. Unless he just didn’t know it was going to be so bad. But he had several chances to get the torture stopped and didn’t. It’s beyond me.

The answer is love.

Love means offering up yourself for the sake of another. Love is not pleasure, sex, or the emotional kick of feeling holy. It’s a very mysterious thing, but we all know we want it.

Anyway, I still think most people are motivated by happiness or pleasure leading to happiness.

As a scientific observation, I agree with you. Very few people have developed the capacity to truly love without self-interest. Due to the corruption of sin, most people rarely have pure intentions. That being said, ethics is concerned with what should be done, not what is done. Even if very few people achieve a truly ethical life, this does not mean that the ethical standard does not apply.

 

[JDaniel]

Animal life is definitely worthy of respect and protection. In many ways, animals exhibit qualities like our own. Loyalty is the first which comes to mind. Many animals can relate to humans and live with them in harmony. Animals have a way of teaching us by the way they cherish their young. Some animals serve us as transportation and so on. We do have to uphold their lives as valuable. That is called being responsible stewards of our natural earth. It could be called reciprocation because of the pleasure animals can give us as pets or as sheer magnificence in the wild. Can you tell I have always been a child of nature.

Even with all of the above, you and I know that we are different from animals. We are set apart from the rest of creation. Thus our life is sacred in a different manner than animals. Even those of us who have difficulty with a God concept, know in the deepest part of our being that we, as humans, have intrinsic value and are worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are meant for eternal life.

You know, here is a subject where human beings could really be exhibiting real “evil”. People who cause pain to animals and feel no remorse whatsoever because they’re just animals might possibly be truly evil, per definitionem.

From my perusal of the research into the psychologies of these types of people, they rarely exhibit remorse. I’m not sure what to do about such people, because, it’s not like they’re killing or hurting human beings. After all, they are just animals. In fact, because they’re just animals, that person who inflicts the pain has more of a happiness/pleasure factor at stake here than the animal has. And, especially if there’s no moral ground to save embryos from dismemberment in the womb. Animals can’t have more value than a living, sentient embryo, can they?

I need some illumination here.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Of course. I am operating within the framework of Catholicism, which has been logically established for me through means not touched on in this thread.

The answer is love.

Love means offering up yourself for the sake of another. Love is not pleasure, sex, or the emotional kick of feeling holy. It’s a very mysterious thing, but we all know we want it.

As a scientific observation, I agree with you. Very few people have developed the capacity to truly love without self-interest. Due to the corruption of sin, most people rarely have pure intentions. That being said, ethics is concerned with what should be done, not what is done. Even if very few people achieve a truly ethical life, this does not mean that the ethical standard does not apply.

Was it you that mentioned, some bunch of posts back, something about the word “ought”? What did you mean by that?

jd