Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?

[STT]

The above question. (the rest for sake of minimum characters)

 

[Crusader30]

Becuase revelation has to do with things other than morality as well.

 

[STT]

Becuase revelation has to do with things other than morality as well.

Ok. Let me change the question in order to clarify my intention better. Why should we need revelation when it comes to morality if morality is objective?

 

[Fauken]

Why should we need revelation when it comes to morality if morality is objective?

For the same reason we need science to observe the natural world despite its characteristics being objective. Just because something is objective doesn’t mean it is inherently known.

 

[Hodos]

Ok. Let me change the question in order to clarify my intention better. Why should we need revelation when it comes to morality if morality is objective?

Because man decided to reject God’s will for his own will. Morality is the objective declaration by God of his will for mankind. Revelation is only the proclamation of that will to men who have departed from it.

 

[STT]

For the same reason we need science to observe the natural world despite its characteristics being objective. Just because something is objective doesn’t mean it is inherently known.

Yes. It is duty of social science and philosophy to know morality. What is the role of revelation in here when we can understand morality?

 

[TrenchantWretch]

Strictly speaking, we don’t need revelation to know how to live morally. Morality is divided into the natural law and the divine law. The natural law is that which can be known through unaided human reason, and from which we can know how we can morally conduct ourselves. The divine law is God’s arbitrary will which we could not know were it not revealed to us.

For example, through reason, we can determine that murder is wrong. Through revelation, we know which day to treat as the Sabbath.

 

[setarcos]

Our objective sense of morality does not always justify our subjective actions. Divine revelation declares the creative source of our objective reality and defines correct action and justice which is in accord with this Moral authority. Revelation declares Gods moral authority as a subject of his will. There is no sin in “immoral actions” nor universal consequence except that God has declared his will in divine revelation.

 

[fide]

I think the answer is here, from the Catechism:

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:
Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)

 

[setarcos]

I think the terms are incorrect. I believe morality is innate within us but not strictly objective. Morality can very well be influenced by internal conflicts or inadequacies. Revelation declares the divine justice of this innate morality.

 

[Thom18]

Morality doesn’t only tell us how we should treat each other, but how we should treat God.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Because there is more to Catholicism than “Da Rules”.
It’s fundamentally God’s relationship to man.

 

[STT]

Our objective sense of morality does not always justify our subjective actions.

Our actions always under judgment of our understanding of morality.

Divine revelation declares the creative source of our objective reality and defines correct action and justice which is in accord with this Moral authority. Revelation declares Gods moral authority as a subject of his will. There is no sin in “immoral actions” nor universal consequence except that God has declared his will in divine revelation.

The point is that if morality is objective then we can understand it by reasoning therefore we don’t need revelation.

 

[STT]

Strictly speaking, we don’t need revelation to know how to live morally. Morality is divided into the natural law and the divine law. The natural law is that which can be known through unaided human reason, and from which we can know how we can morally conduct ourselves. The divine law is God’s arbitrary will which we could not know were it not revealed to us.

For example, through reason, we can determine that murder is wrong. Through revelation, we know which day to treat as the Sabbath.

Yes, I agree with what you stated.

 

[STT]

I don’t think that addresses the problem since I don’t think that man’s disordered appetite allows man to convinces himself that immoral act is moral.

 

[setarcos]

The point is that if morality is objective then we can understand it by reasoning therefore we don’t need revelation.

I understand your point. I believe though that this is too black and white and is not reflective of reality. Morality, in order to be an objective condition of human nature must in its defining characteristics be universally recognized. History has taught us it is not. Even my own experience has taught me it is not. The condition of morality is innate to human nature but subject to subjective influences. There are situations in which a determined immoral action may be deemed moral is some peoples understanding. For instance the old testament “an eye for an eye” was deemed a justified and moral act. However, through Jesus’s divine revelation this is no longer the case and has been deemed an immoral action. What we think is an objective moral action is not always the case. I believe many people actually suppress their innate sense of morality in order to justify their perceived understanding of objective morality. While one can reason themselves to declaring something objectively moral despite being unjust, divine revelation is needed to define and justify our innate morality. It is its source and authority.

 

[STT]

Morality doesn’t only tell us how we should treat each other, but how we should treat God.

I think we can understand how we should treat God based on reasoning, morality shouldn’t be against reasoning.

 

[STT]

I understand your point. I believe though that this is too black and white and is not reflective of reality. Morality, in order to be an objective condition of human nature must in its defining characteristics be universally recognized.

It could be universally accepted if it was objective.

History has taught us it is not. Even my own experience has taught me it is not. The condition of morality is innate to human nature but subject to subjective influences. There are situations in which a determined immoral action may be deemed moral is some peoples understanding.

That meas that morality is subjective.

For instance the old testament “an eye for an eye” was deemed a justified and moral act. However, through Jesus’s divine revelation this is no longer the case and has been deemed an immoral action.

Interesting. So there is a conflict between words of God in old and new testaments.

 

[setarcos]

morality shouldn’t be against reasoning.

Ah but there are occasions when reasoning would justifiably lead one to an immoral action and a moral action may be deemed unreasonable. For instance if one has captured an enemy it is just to treat that enemy morally but it may be reasonably argued that one must immorally deprive that enemy of his life even though defeated and unarmed because it was deemed too burdensome to guard or keep secure that enemy. Its practically considered universally immoral to torture someone but it may be reasonably argued that it is necessary in some circumstances in order to ensure victory over ones enemies. It is generally considered to be immoral to lie but may be reasonable in some situations. It is reasonable to be moral but not always moral to be reasonable.

 

[STT]

Ah but there are occasions when reasoning would justifiably lead one to an immoral action and a moral action may be deemed unreasonable.

Yes, morality is situation dependent.