Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?

[Wozza]

The priests of that God let you know.

It’s why they exist.

‘That’ god?

That gets us nowhere nearer an answer. In fact, it moves us further away from one.

Joe says that he knows what’s morally correct because his god has the ‘objective standard’. And he knows that because the god’s priests told him.

If we are to accept that then we need to be sure that his god is the right one. And we need to be sure that its priests are giving him a correct interpretation. I guess they’ve convinced Joe that they are the guys to trust. That they have a connection with their god that he doesn’t have so he must listen to them and do what they say.

It seems like every society from Day One has had these sort of people. But Joe would say that every single one of them was wrong. Except for his priests.

Is that a reasonable position?

 

[Wozza]

The tense is irrelevant in my view. I will always and have always held the view that torture is immoral for example. In the past, in the present, and the future.

I’m afraid that you are not answering my question. I am not asking which moral positions you agree with. I want to know what position you take on any moral position that conflicts with this ‘objective morality’ we seem to have.

If you were a member of the Inquisition you would have thought that torture was morally acceptable. If you were a Christian land owner in 19th century America you would have thought slavery was morally acceptable.

Two questions then arise: If there was an objective moral standard, then why wouldn’t you have known it at the time. And if you didn’t know it at the time then there must be some aspects of morality that you have wrong now.

Either:

1. There are no aspects of morality which you are have wrong (in which case we can simply ask you for a solution to all moral problems).

Or:

1. There aspects which you have wrong. In which case, do you have any idea what they may be?

 

[Wozza]

Religion evolved to fill this role in complex societies. Morality isn’t what you say it is. It’s what God or the gods say it is. In post-religious societies (if there actually are any), the function is carried out by The State.

I think we may have been talking past each other. Probably my fault. Because I agree with this.

Evolution has filtered out the basic moral positions which allow societies to form. And if you don’t have the knowledge to realise this then the standard position would be ‘Well, these beliefs must have come from somewhere’.

And your friendly neighbourhood priest (see previous post) says: ‘Actually, I know. Because I, and only I, have a direct connection to our god’.

Nice work if you can get it.

 

[o_mlly]

This means that the church accepts that one can choose not to tell the truth if the situation warrants it.

Is it your position that it would still be evil? You did say that ‘lying is always evil’.

To reasonably withhold the truth is not the same as lying.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The priests of that God let you know.

It’s why they exist.

‘That’ god?

Absolutely. Whichever God the society you and those around you worship.

If those are different gods (you vs your broader society), you’re in for some problems.

That gets us nowhere nearer an answer. In fact, it moves us further away from one.

Not at all. It just doesn’t reinforce your apparent insistence that morality is an independent concept from god or a god-like approximation. I don’t think it is.

If we are to accept that then we need to be sure that his god is the right one.

Virtually all claims metaphysical cannot be empirically tested. It’s an accept/reject axiom.

And we need to be sure that its priests are giving him a correct interpretation.

As a matter of tautology, it’s right because it came from the priests. They aren’t subject to your verification. If anything, you’re subject to theirs.

It seems like every society from Day One has had these sort of people. But Joe would say that every single one of them was wrong. Except for his priests.

Is that a reasonable position?

As I said, it can’t be empirically verified. As such, when the peoples of two different gods encounter one another your answers will generally be provided via Conflict Theory.

Evolution has filtered out the basic moral positions which allow societies to form.

But those positions aren’t “right” because of evolution. They’re right because the priest said so.

This is reasonably obvious when on accepts that evolution is a scientific concept and science cannot provide values - only information.

On an evolutionary basis, theft and rape aren’t objectively wrong. Stealing from tribes outside yours is an advantageous behavior, from an evolutionary basis. And on rape - the vast majority of sexual interaction between mammals isn’t what we’d call “consensual”.

Evolution cannot provide morals unto itself. It’s a scientific concept that doesn’t espouse values and no one authoritatively speaks for it.

And your friendly neighbourhood priest (see previous post) says: ‘Actually, I know. Because I, and only I, have a direct connection to our god’.

Nice work if you can get it.

Indeed. But that doesn’t offset the possibility of a god that’s more selectively talkative. Indeed, the notion that God would or should speak to you personally in any authoritative way erodes the moral fabric of the greater society - which is what morality exists to serve.

Again, no one cares what you or I individually think. We’re worth roughly 1/8 billionth of human consensus.

 

[laylow]

If morality is theoretically objective, but realistically inaccessible, then the concept essentially becomes some pie-in-the-sky, Utopian idea, which I’m not sure is totally helpful.

 

[Vonsalza]

If morality is theoretically objective, but realistically inaccessible, then the concept essentially becomes some pie-in-the-sky, Utopian idea, which I’m not sure is totally helpful.

It’s not realistically inaccessible - it’s just not guaranteed to be personally accessible from the source.

There’s an economy there as it pertains to the distribution and arbitration.
[God (or equivalent)] → [priests (or equivalent)] → [You].

 

[laylow]

It’s not realistically inaccessible - it’s just not guaranteed to be personally accessible from the source.

There’s an economy there as it pertains to the distribution and arbitration.
[God (or equivalent)] -> [priests (or equivalent)] -> [You].

If you start from the perspective that God does not exist, then the only true morality that exists is the one that is being exercised upon society. With the complexities of social issues and gray areas of each individual case, the Utopian “objective” morality can never be reached.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

It’s not realistically inaccessible - it’s just not guaranteed to be personally accessible from the source.

There’s an economy there as it pertains to the distribution and arbitration.
[God (or equivalent)] -> [priests (or equivalent)] -> [You].

If you start from the perspective that God does not exist, then the only true morality that exists is the one that is being exercised upon society. With the complexities of social issues and gray areas of each individual case, the Utopian “objective” morality can never be reached.

In complete honesty, I’m not sure you can make a good case for the existence of morality as a concept independent of a driving god.

As far as “being exercised upon society”, I think the society chooses the god. Or at least consents to it. It’s been a useful (likely critical) functionary for as long as the particular society has existed. We reinforce it through ancestor-whorship and the fact that it’s the scheme we’re raised in, thus predisposed to accept - further facilitating its function.

I think this idea has some legs.

 

[laylow]

In complete honesty, I’m not sure you can make a good case for the existence of morality as a concept independent of a driving god.

As far as “being exercised upon society”, I think the society chooses the god. Or at least consents to it. It’s been a useful (likely critical) functionary for as long as the particular society has existed. We reinforce it through ancestor-whorship and the fact that it’s the scheme we’re raised in, thus predisposed to accept - further facilitating its function.

I think this idea has some legs.

Very arguable whether it is necessary or even helpful. But all current religious interpretations leave much to be desired.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I suppose that if one is lacking certain truths, then one is left to come up with a perception of morality grounded in nothing but the whims of society or errant philosophies. But, such secular meanderings are far from the view of the Catholic Moral Theologian. For us, God is the source of all Goodness. All God creates is good. The gifts or goods of creation are designed with purpose in mind. Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. Human beings were created for the purpose of harmonious and loving relationships. A central part of being created in the image of God are the gifts of free will and the capacity to love human beings have been given. For the very nature of God is love. Human freedom is necessary if we are to have the capacity to love God, self and one another.

Because we are created in the image of God, human beings are endowed with intrinsic dignity. By our very nature, we are worthy of esteem and respect. With free will comes the capacity to misuse or misdirect our freedom. This always impacts our relationships with self, others, God and creation. God has given us the gift of a conscience to guide us towards good and away from evil. The misuse of freedom breaks down relationships. In the creation stories of scripture, sin leads to division between: God and humanity; Adam and Eve; humanity and creation. Jesus Christ, the fullest manifestation of Imago Dei, came to redeem us and to restore us to the Imago Dei we are intended to be and to bring us back into the relational order God intends. Jesus calls us to live according to the “Law of Love.” Living according to the “Law of Love” directs us towards our purpose- to love God, neighbor and self. The formation of our conscience and the direction of our freedom flow from our identity as followers of Christ.

Yet, for one who does not have faith, such a perspective must be outright rejected. Instead, a godless form of morality must be adopted. Their “church” becomes the secular institutions which feed them their godless doctrines and they have as their patron saints those who have rejected religion down through the centuries. They look to men the likes of Voltaire, Hume, Nietzsche, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini for guidance. These are their dark and tragic patron saints. Yet, the works of such men reveal the true nature of such empty moral systems.

Indeed, as you already profess, the individual becomes worthless and individual conscience is irrelevant in the schemes of godless morality. Only the state or the party or the teaching institutions matter when God is presumed absent or dead. For there is no higher authority. Only these authorities decides what is right or wrong. But what of human dignity? Where is human dignity to be found within such perspectives? Or, like God, has it been also deemed a myth?

Now, of course, I expect you will follow your usual pattern and deconstruct my post via quotes and refute them, piecemeal. However, you might consider, instead, merely explaining your own moral perspective and its basis if, in fact, you actually have one.

 

[o_mlly]

If you start from the perspective that God does not exist, then the only true morality that exists is the one that is being exercised upon society.

Legal positivism confirms only that certain laws exist. Whether those laws are just can only be judged against a standard outside that legal jurisprudence.

With the complexities of social issues and gray areas of each individual case, the Utopian “objective” morality can never be reached.

That logic would suggest that because we cannot be perfect, therefore, we need not be good.

 

[Vonsalza]

I suppose that if one is lacking certain truths, then one is left to come up with a perception of morality grounded in nothing but the whims of society or errant philosophies. But, such secular meanderings are far from the view of the Catholic Moral Theologian. For us, God is the source of all Goodness. All God creates is good.

All you wall flowers reading this - this is exactly what I’m talking about. Look how his moral system works for him. It objectively provides answers to his metaphysical questions.

Yet, for one who does not have faith, such a perspective must be outright rejected. Instead, a godless form of morality must be adopted.

Amen! Yes!

However, you might consider, instead, merely explaining your own moral perspective and its basis if, in fact, you actually have one.

I have absolutely no desire to infect you with my post-modern doubt. For you and your similarly devoted Catholic brethren - you have authentic community that answers all the big questions. In that way, you’re more functionally “human” than any of us post-modern religious thinkers, even as you’re incapable of materially grounding any of it, at least from a supernatural perspective.

It might not even exist, but it works for you and your community wonderfully. - Behold my over-arching point concerning religion, morality and their subjectivity vs objectivity.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I have absolutely no desire to infect you with my post-modern doubt. For you and your similarly devoted Catholic brethren - you have authentic community that answers all the big questions. In that way, you’re more functionally “human” than any of us post-modern religious thinkers, even as you’re incapable of materially grounding any of it, at least from a supernatural perspective.

It might not even exist , but it works for you and your community wonderfully. - Behold my over-arching point concerning religion, morality and their subjectivity vs objectivity.

It sounds like you are adrift in the sea of “post-modern doubt” you describe. But I invite you to come ashore. Place your feet firmly upon the ground. Step into the groves of creation, into our first Temple, so full of that ancient mystery of life, one mystery under shade of darkness, under a canopy of shadows so cool with silence and covered with living moss. Behold in that garden place the flashing with flickering sun where light and darkness fall together intertwined, mingling heaven with earth, mingling now with the solitude of centuries in this sanctuary of living columns, dripping with life, flowing with the dew of new life, filling our veins with that vitality which flows from the very hand of God.

 

[Vonsalza]

It sounds like you are adrift in the sea of “post-modern doubt” you describe.

Hazard of developing secular, critical thought. Might be the root and leaf of the Fermi Paradox - particularly the “Great Filter” explanation of it.

But I invite you to come ashore. Place your feet firmly upon the ground.

I can make a better argument for Orthodoxy than I can Catholicism as the greatest and best heir of the Church of the Apostles. Byz-Caths are certainly appealing though. They share communion, but more tenuously.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

This means that the church accepts that one can choose not to tell the truth if the situation warrants it.

Is it your position that it would still be evil? You did say that ‘lying is always evil’.

To reasonably withhold the truth is not the same as lying.

So what is your answer to: ‘Are your children hiding in the house?’

Is it: ‘I’m a Catholic so it’s reasonable for me to refuse to answer that’. Or ‘No’.

I’ve got an idea you might take option 2. But if there’s another option then let me know.

 

[Elf01]

So what is your answer to: ‘Are your children hiding in the house?’

Is it: ‘I’m a Catholic so it’s reasonable for me to refuse to answer that’. Or ‘No’.

I’ve got an idea you might take option 2. But if there’s another option then let me know.

Depends on why the children are being sought. If the police want to arrest them for a crime they’ve committed I’d hand them over.

If it was someone who wanted to do them harm (assuming I thought of it in the moment) I’d invite them to search. I don’t think lying would prevent a search anyway and I avoid telling a direct lie.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ll take the bait.

I’d totally lie to keep the police from arresting my babies, especially if it was something that had a good chance of blowing over - like my son being sought for crashing his car into someone’s fence and running because he might not be fully sober.

As a DUI can be a very damaging thing, even if he deserves it, I’d still try to save him from it.

That doesn’t mean we won’t be having several discussions about life choices. But barring something that wouldn’t go away like a murder charge, I’d lie to protect my kids and have more control over the consequences.

I don’t appeal to religion in my decision though.

 

[HarryStotle]

I have absolutely no desire to infect you with my post-modern doubt. For you and your similarly devoted Catholic brethren - you have authentic community that answers all the big questions. In that way, you’re more functionally “human” than any of us post-modern religious thinkers, even as you’re incapable of materially grounding any of it, at least from a supernatural perspective.

It might not even exist, but it works for you and your community wonderfully. - Behold my over-arching point concerning religion, morality and their subjectivity vs objectivity.

I would suppose that the “grounding problem” belongs to you and not to the “religious thinkers” precisely because doubt, thought, questions, perspective and everything else associated with the problem are not essentially material to begin with, so seeking to “materially ground” what is not, substantively speaking, material in the first place, makes the post-modernist doubter the one who is utterly incapable of resolving the “grounding problem.”

And projecting your psychological dilemma onto others doesn’t exactly resolve it for you.

 

[Vonsalza]

HarryStotle:

I would suppose that the “grounding problem” belongs to you and not to the “religious thinkers” precisely because doubt, thought, questions, perspective and everything else associated with the problem are not essentially material to begin with, so seeking to “materially ground” what is not, substantively speaking, material in the first place, makes the post-modernist doubter the one who is utterly incapable of resolving the “grounding problem.”

But what your missing in your theosophic triumphalism here is the realization that for a society that is religiously pluralist, objective reasons to be Catholic vs virtually anything else don’t exist.
Other religions are older,
Other religions are bigger,
Other religions conflict less with contemporary reality.

The grounding problem leads to a genuine dilemma of choice:
Picking none puts you at a cultural and metaphysical disadvantage, but the major ones to pick between have absolutely no clear, intrinsic advantage over each other.

And projecting your psychological dilemma onto others doesn’t exactly resolve it for you.

Stating that no religion is demonstrably more true than another is a psychological issue?

I just appreciate faith communities. They provide proof-positive the power of ideas, even if those ideas may not be true.