Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?

[setarcos]

Greetings STT, seems in the time I’ve been away the debate has moved on quite a few posts. Hopefully progress in understanding has been made. I’ve not read through to the last post yet but would like to answer your replies to my last post since this is where my conversation with you had ended. I would welcome any incite you have gleaned from the following posts if you would care to share.
“It can be demonstrated that there is no universally accepted objective view of morality.”…to elaborate on this - I am saying that a concept of common understanding on what constitutes morality (an objective morality) or moral behavior which is universally recognized between individuals, cultures, even nations does not exist. One cultures sexual mores, perhaps involving multiple wives, husbands, even immediate cousins or homosexuals is a morally accepted norm while it is another cultures immoral behavior. One nations definition of murder is another nations definition of justice. One individuals embezzlement is another individuals justified moral action. The perspective of “objective morality” is subject to external influences on its understanding. Be it subjective causes in the individual - biological, or educational for instance, or objective causes in the collective which deem it morally acceptable in specific cases such as circumstantial - stealing bread to feed your family, sacrificing the one to save the many, denying Christ in order to not be shot by firing squad, or certain religious practices deemed immoral by “outsiders”. All these behaviors deemed moral by the individual or the collective are subject to the circumstances, places, and times in which they are judged and not all these behaviors are judged universally equally nor without definitional differences. One may indeed reason oneself to a strong sense of objective morality and this objective morality deeply depends on reasoning. Incorrect, perverted, or sound reasoning. Innate morality doesn’t depend on reasoning in order to justify its existence. Indeed innate morality often goes against sound reasoning.

 

[setarcos]

There is not such a thing as universal sense of innate morality. Consider the case of a serial killer.

Lets consider a serial killer. Many interviews have been done with captured serial killers, famous and not so famous, within the last century. The twentieth century has seen many in depth studies done on captured serial killers most of which were all too ready to talk about their cases and motivations. There was a common thread found throughout. They knew what they were doing was wrong at some level, doing what they did anyway - some because they couldn’t help themselves but were anguished about it, some, as in the case of the pure psychopath, didn’t care. Those in anguish knew that their actions were immoral. This would be innate morality. Psychopaths knew it was wrong but tried to justify their actions through a twisted sense of objective morality specific to themselves as individuals - people who insult me should be punished, or she was a hooker spreading disease so deserved to die, or I had to kill them before they killed me, or it is morally acceptable for the superior hunter such as myself to kill the inferior prey. The serial killers innate sense of morality informed them on some level that what they were doing was wrong, however they usually havd a developed sense of objective morality which was used to justify their actions. In the psychopath, for whatever reason - biological defect, supernatural influence, what ever subjective influence is happening the individuals created definition of objective morality suppresses the innate morality ,found in every human nature, to the point of rendering no influential effect on the individual other than a sense of its existence. Serial killers who cant help themselves but exhibit anguish over their actions afterword are demonstrating the internal conflicts between “objective morality” - the stories we tell ourselves in order to justify our actions and “innate morality” - the universal morality instilled in all human nature which connects us with the divine.

No it is like saying that it is rainy and sunny today.

Not on the same day nor circumstance. You say no it is not like that but you need to elaborate as to why it is not like that.

God be with you always…

 

[setarcos]

Give me an example of an evil act in their object so that I may better understand.
Are you saying the object of the act determines its evilness?
Thank you and blessings.

 

[setarcos]

Are you saying the object of the action determines whether or not that action is moral or immoral so that no matter the effect…what ever the object was is the decisive factor in universal morality?

 

[setarcos]

The willful taking of innocent human life is always and everywhere by anyone immoral.

Does this not beg the question…how do we determine what human life is innocent, do we ever have that right? How do you define who is innocent? Are you saying that it is ok to willingly take a human life which has been determined to be guilty in some manner? Would this then be moral behavior?

 

[adgloriam]

From a major in exact sciences:

cold and heat are two words to express a measure of energy.

Electric permittivity would have to be reduced to the 7 base units of SI to make sense in that context. In this case divide the following by meter:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Thus permittivity in vacuum expresses how an electric field behaves in vacuum, it refers to the electric field which is something, not to the vacuum which is only emptiness.

Sorry…

 

[Catholicwife32]

I would not hesitate to define evil as the amount of objective damages you suffer to your person and property. To avoid any temptation at moral relativism, evil should always be quantified by the amount of damages suffered.

Descriptive moral relativism points that that, even when all factors are equal, people tend to have different opinions on what is morally good or evil. THAT is simply fact. No one refutes that.

What is against Church teaching is meta-ethical moral relativism which argues that " terms such as “good”, “bad”, “right” and “wrong” do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people."

A lot of people end up not understanding moral relativism at all and instead condemn Church teaching as moral relativism. When we talk about the gravity of an evil, we’re talking about it’s relation to goodness. So indeed, the gravity is relative goodness. That’s NOT the same thing as moral relativism as moral relativism denies that anything is good to begin with.

From there, you look at the will factors to determine your culpability for the action. The powers of will rest in our awareness or knowledge and our willfulness or consent.

As such, the moral weight of a particular evil can differ among individuals while morality remains absolute. Whereas moral relativism argues that there is no objective good or evil and thus evil is only evil because you think it’s evil. Whereas we’d say "The action was evil, indeed, but you may not be fully culpable for the evil due to ignorance or your lack of consent.

 

[Vonsalza]

Could you clarify what you mean by “object of the action”?

 

[setarcos]

I’d say this is meaningless. The question would be, if the object is God then how is it that any action can have any other object? Immorality would cease to mean anything. When you say God is the universal object of our actions you eliminate all other subjective objects do you not? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you.

 

[setarcos]

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the terms used. It is my understanding that any action has an object which is the initiator to act.

 

[setarcos]

In this view I’d would say the object is the divinely given grace of our innate sense of morality and the subject of that morality is God.

 

[TheOldColonel]

It is, rather, truth that is objective. The objectivity of morality follows from truth according to the Natural Law which affords intelligibility of certain truths to human minds. These truths come to us through the General Revelation of creation. So, all truth, in this regard, is revealed truth. It is because of this that people easily know if an act is wrong or right. For thousands of years people have known that murder is evil, stealing is wrong, lying is harmful, etc.

Deuteronomy 30:11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach."

 

[setarcos]

Lets take it to the most extreme. God himself gave the life of an innocent human being in order that the rest may be saved. Do you judge Gods actions as immoral according to O_mlly’s determination of morality?

 

[Vonsalza]

Paradigm differences for sure. I don’t place a ton of weight on the innate moral compass.

I think it’s mostly echoes of your upbringing.

 

[Wozza]

Objectivity doesn’t have anything to do with the possibility of differing opinions. It just makes differing opinions wrong as measured by the objective standard.

You know it’s moral because the standard says so.

What objective standard?

You are saying that there are things that are morally correct with which you would disagree. Because ‘the standard’ says so. What are they?

 

[setarcos]

It is, rather, truth that is objective.

By definition you are correct, however getting to the truth is often a subjective ordeal. Consider there is no universal truth that is not subject to its own cause. For instance while it may be true that black is not white this truth does not determine the truth of orange not being yellow. Be that as it may, if you live in a land of black and white what is subject to the relationship between orange and yellow as being true does not apply. So what is the objective truth here concerning both sets of colors? It is not that black is not white therefore orange is not yellow but rather if one color is not absolutely equal in perception - Its shade, tint, hue, tone, frequency etc. then it is not that same color. It is a self evident thing to see that all else being equal if two colors are not the same then they are different. It is not so self evident to see however, whether two colors are the same or not. Given subtle differences in perceptive abilities between individuals is it an immoral act that one individual should see that two given colors are the same as much as it is a moral act of another individual of keener perception should see that they are not? Natural law does not afford intelligibility in equal measure to all human minds. Creations revelations are subject to the perception of individuals uniquely not universally in equal measure. Therefor unless you remove the uniqueness from the individual which creation has not then all truth is not revealed truth to all individuals. I’d say it is because of this rather that many people cant easily know if an act is wrong or right. It is because of this that we have moral dilemmas which beg for justification. Murder is wrong but then is killing an enemy also wrong? Stealing is wrong, but then is stealing from someone who has more than enough in order to save your starving family also wrong? Is it wrong to commit offense in order to satisfy the morality of cherishing life over death? Is it immoral to lie if in lying we save many Jewish families from torture and death?..etc. etc…

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Gunman: Are your children hiding in the house?

See the CCC #2488.

I’m aware of it. It contradicts your position so I’m confused as why you would confirm that.

 

[setarcos]

Definitional differences I’d say. The moral compass you don’t wish to rely too heavily on is what I consider to be “objective morality”. Innate morality is the grace given by God universally to all in their human nature.

 

[setarcos]

Here’s one example…At one point in history it must have been deemed morally correct for the church to torture people since the procedure was officially sanctioned by the church. I whole heartedly disagree with torturing any individual for any reason at any time in the present, the future, or the past and consider the practice to be morally reprehensible.

 

[Wozza]

Here’s one example…At one point in history it must have been deemed morally correct for the church to torture people since the procedure was officially sanctioned by the church. I whole heartedly disagree with torturing any individual for any reason at any time in the present, the future, or the past and consider the practice to be morally reprehensible.

You missed the tense. I want an example of a moral act that you currently think is wrong which is right by this ‘objective standard’. It"'s too easy to say that slavery was wrong or the inquisition was wrong. I want to know about a disagreement you have with morality NOW.

If we have an objective standard then you should in theory know all the answers to all moral problems. In which case we don’t need this objective standard. We can just ask you.

Or there is a moral position with which you disagree. In which case, what is it?