Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?

[STT]

This is not what the Church teaches. The Word of God (or Divine Logos) is the second person of the Holy Trinity, who is Christ. Divine Revelation are things God has revealed to us that could not be known through reason alone. Divine Revelation is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

That I know. By “words of God” I meant what God tell us. Moreover here we are focusing on morality and whether it can be known by reason alone.

Evil doesn’t exist. Evil is the negation of the good. It is not merely “It’s evil only because God says it is.” It’s evil because God is perfectly good and any choices we make toward good are toward God and any we make that are away from the good (though they may still have some good in them) are away from God.

The ten commandments give SOME basis for morality, but the summary of Christ’s teachings is found in the Sermon on the Mount, of which the Beatitudes are central.

I know that you believe that evil does not exist. I think I can buy your definition of good and evil to see how our discussion follows in regard to subject of this thread.

 

[adgloriam]

Evil doesn’t exist. Evil is the negation of the good

Evil certainly exists as crime and sin go to show.

The Thomistic definition that: “Evil is an absence of good”, only defines evil in relation to good, not the effects of objective evil deeds in themselves. Evil can also be equated to malice, the intention of doing something evil, which can be objective (however misguided and distanced from good).

 

[Vonsalza]

A little further clarified, objective morality and your freedom to refuse to recognize it are separate ideas.

 

[STT]

Mankind as a whole found the alws of mathematics. Each new child still have to be taught. Further there are many, many laws of science we still don’t know.

Yes. We of course have to teach what we have found to our children.

“Objectively true” d oes not mean :simple and obvious". We still need teachers.

Yes, I agree with that.

Further, in the c ase of morality we often w ant to do the opposite of what objective morality tells us we must do. It’s harder to learn thing we don’t want to be true; and harder to learn what other people around us are insisting aren’t true.

Here we are not interested on free will.

 

[STT]

It is your example. What are the circumstances? Once you’ve all answered the questions posed then others may judge the act.

I already explained the circumstances. You accepted that the terrorist given the circumstances is not innocent. So what is left is to choose between the life of one person or the lives of many. Which one do you pick?

The issues are separate. Do you blame God when a tsunami kills innocent persons?

That is natural disaster.

I have always claimed the Bible is theological and not historical. Suggest a new thread to discuss the theology.

Ok, I will perhaps open another thread for that.

 

[STT]

X and a derivative of X aren’t the same thing.

Non sequitur stands as I see it.

We have two options when it comes to morality: 1) Objective and 2) subjective. In first case all people have the same opinion about morality. In the second case people have different opinion about laws of morality. There is no other option. Which one do you pick?

 

[Vonsalza]

No, even if it’s objective folks still have opinions.

A clear example that drives this home is law. The law is objectively the law, but opinions about whether it may be a just law.

I pick that on an individual basis morality is irrelevant. It’s like asking about the rules of a two player game when there’s only one player.

On a societal basis it’s objective.

 

[STT]

Most cultures in the past have deemed some immoral thing(s) to be moral. Such things include, human sacrifice, infanticide, slavery, forced/child marriage, marital/corrective rape, female subjugation, torture, collective punishment, sexism, racism (the list goes on). Some of these things are only now thought of to be immoral. So I think this should show why revelation is necessary.

Yes, we all know that. Here we are however discussing objective morality rather than subjective one which the later depends on culture, people opinion, era, etc.

 

[o_mlly]

I already explained the circumstances.

I missed your reply to these questions.

How do you know the person is a terrorist? If that knowledge is a moral certainty or that person is imminently in the act of murder then the person is not innocent.

 

[Zaccheus]

Vonsalza:

X and a derivative of X aren’t the same thing.

Non sequitur stands as I see it.

We have two options when it comes to morality: 1) Objective and 2) subjective. In first case all people have the same opinion about morality. In the second case people have different opinion about laws of morality. There is no other option. Which one do you pick?

A thing may be objectively true even if some people do not believe it.

If the correct answer to an equation is ‘15’ then it is still 15 even if several people insist it’s really 18 and some others say it’s 22.

Morality is objective. People’s opinions on moral issues can still be subjective.

 

[Vonsalza]

Well said.

 

[Zaccheus]

Well said.

Thank you.

 

[STT]

To start, that some morals are God’s wish, God given.

God cannot wish evil. We agree on the fact that we can know objective morality under the light of reason therefore we can know what is good and evil. Therefore there is no room left for God’s wishes.

That other moral virtues, are humanly unattainable without God’s grace. That on some moral issues the church has authority to say what is right and wrong.

Here you are evading what you have accepted: “We can justify morality under the light of reason in a given religion”. That is you who accept a religion and the laws of morality within based on reason. Therefore that is your authority rather than the church authority. In another word there is no room left for the church.

 

[STT]

No, even if it’s objective folks still have opinions.

A clear example that drives this home is law. The law is objectively the law, but opinions about whether it may be a just law.

I pick that on an individual basis morality is irrelevant. It’s like asking about the rules of a two player game when there’s only one player.

On a societal basis it’s objective.

The morality is subjective if it is social base or personal base.

 

[Vonsalza]

Not to the individual, it isn’t.

 

[STT]

I missed your reply to these questions.

A person whom you trust tell you that there is going to be a terrorist activity. Or you see the terrorist killing people.

 

[adgloriam]

You arguments keep lacking logical structure.

 

[Zaccheus]

God cannot wish evil. We agree on the fact that we can know objective morality under the light of reason therefore we can know what is good and evil. Therefore there is no room left for God’s wishes.

adgloriam:

God cannot wish evil. Anything God wishes must be good. It is God’s wish that we do only good.

If we can know objective morality then we can know what is good and what is evil. We are capable of choosing. We might choose to do good or we might choose to do evil.

God wills that we do good. How is there not room left for God’s will?

 

[STT]

A thing may be objectively true even if some people do not believe it.

If the correct answer to an equation is ‘15’ then it is still 15 even if several people insist it’s really 18 and some others say it’s 22.

Morality is objective. People’s opinions on moral issues can still be subjective.

Here we are talking about reason on the subject. There is no room left for people’s opinion. 1+1=2. Any opinion that says that the sum is 3 is wrong.

 

[STT]

You arguments keep lacking logical structure.

Where? Could you please elaborate?