Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Jesus willingly cooperated in God’s plan. I see that as similar to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades.
 
40.png
Vonsalza:
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?
The one provided by God.
 
40.png
Wozza:
40.png
Vonsalza:
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?
The one provided by God.
I assume that you mean ‘…by a god’. Because the obvious question is: In your personal opinion, is your God"s standard the correct one as opposed to mine?

With a follow up: If your God is the objective standard on any matter, then how do you know what it is?
 
Give me an example of an evil act in their object so that I may better understand.
Lying.
By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. CCC#2485
Are you saying the object of the act determines its evilness?
The object of the human act is one of three fonts that determine its morality. The others are intention and circumstances. See the Catechism.
 
Does this not beg the question…how do we determine what human life is innocent, do we ever have that right?
All are innocent until proven not to be so. The evidence of guilt must be fully determined. For those in authority, the right to determine guilt is also often a duty.
 
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.
Isn’t the sense of innate morality in the case a Psychopath the result of what they have been thought?
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…
So you believe that God’s mind on a subject could change?
 
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. We all know torture has been used in the past and justified using an objective standard defined within the individual, nation, or cultural perspective within which it exists. Torture is being used today, torture will be used tomorrow most assuredly as long as the God of lies rules this world. I deem it always immoral to torture, others deem it morally necessary in some cases. This is NOW. This is present tense. If there is an extent universal moral standard by which all peoples may objectively turn to in order to define moral action how is it that a person can believe they are performing a moral action yet in reality be a conduit of immorality?
Consider this, This objective standard is either projected toward others as an inherently necessary thing to agree with because it is moral or projected onto others as a thing to agree with as being just within the particular context in which it is being used, it is moral in these circumstances. These things are given, by those acting in such cases to be understood by “outsiders” who do not practice or agree with the particular actions being done. The ones practicing the actions have deemed it either moral for all or at least moral for those “insiders” - individuals in particular circumstances, particular cultures, citizens of specific nations - despite the objections of those “outsiders”. The jest of my posts has been to show that there is no universally recognized “objective standard”. There is only a universal innate standard given by grace from God to every individual. We will never have answers to all moral problems in this world because our nature has become perverted. Our sense of objective morality is not in tune with our sense of innate morality. There IS no objective standard. There is only the subjective standard - That is the standard each individual has been equally endowed with by God - which is universal but whose influential capacity has been diminished through the fall.
 
Greetings Elf01…I hope this day finds you content.
As indicated in my post my statement was centered around O_mlly’s determination of immorality according to his statement…repeated below.
“The willful taking of innocent human life is always and everywhere by anyone immoral.”
You yourself used the word willingly in your response. God willingly - God cannot go against his own will by definition - gave his only son as a sacrifice and Jesus willingly accepted his fate. We know Jesus was innocent of all charges against him. Indeed he was the most innocent human being at the time in all of creation was he not? So God (fits the bill of anyone) willingly sacrificed - nothing can oppose Gods will - his only begotten son who was (innocent) to the infinite degree in a place outside Jerusalem called Golgotha (anywhere) around 33 AD give or take a few years ( at anytime). God is the willing someone, Jesus is the innocent, Golgotha is the anywhere, 33 AD is the anytime. Can God be judged immoral according to the statement? Because Jesus willingly cooperated doesn’t diminish the appropriateness of the question to any degree. I know where you believe the question fails. You consider God and the sacrificed Jesus to be the same person. Therefore rather than a second person sacrificing another innocent person in order to satisfy some desire we have an innocent person sacrificing himself in order to save others. I do not consider the sacrificed Jesus the same as the God that willingly gave him over to be sacrificed for several reasons. This is not the thread to go into them so I will leave that particular reasoning where it lies and ask instead for you to consider the case of Abraham and his son Isaac. Was Abraham about to commit an immoral act?
 
Last edited:
I believe it was, or rather I said that there was no conflict between the two statements.
 
Well, if truth is so subjective, then I suppose you have to decide which type of morality you want to practice. Indeed, tossing aside the objectivity of truth opens up a variable smorgasbord of delectable “isms” not readily available to Christian Moral Theologians. And you don’t have to choose just one. You can keep them all in your moral toolbox for later use as needed.

Do you want to be a Relativist? You know “When in Rome, Do as the Roman’s do” or “That’s right for you.” For the relativist, moral reality is not objective, but subjective. Circumstances and personal choice are all that are needed to justify one’s actions.

Do you want to be a Hedonist? “If it feels good, Do it” For the hedonist, the goal is to you freedom in a way that maximizes pleasure for the self. A life full of pleasure is a good life.

Do you want to be a Proportionist? “Benefit > Cost = Choice” For the proportionalist, moral decisions are made based on a cost benefit ration. If the benefits of a certain action outweigh the cost, then it’s the right thing to do.

Do you want to be a Utilitarianist? “The greatest happiness for the largest number.” For the utilitarian, the goal is to use freedom in a way that maximizes pleasure for the many. A society where most people experience pleasure is a good society.

Do you want to be a Legalist who adheres to Divine Command Theory? “God said it, I believe it, That settles it!” For the Legalist, moral decisions are made on the basis of rules imposed by authority. When making moral decisions, law is absolute and must be followed to the letter. Circumstances or reason do not mitigate this obligation of law.

Do you want to be an Individualist or Egoist? “Looking out for Number One” For the individualist, moral decisions must be made on the basis of personal freedom and independence from others. Actions which benefit the needs of the individual over and above the needs of others are always moral. Inter-dependency with others is to be avoided because it limits personal freedom.

Do you want to be a Behaviorist? “I just couldn’t help myself” Behaviorists believe that human acts are solely the result of nature and conditioning. To act according to one’s nature or programming is amoral. If humans are not fully free, they cannot be fully culpable in moral matters.

So, as you see, without the constraints of objective truth, you have a lot to choose from. 😎
 
Last edited:
Well, if truth is so subjective, then I suppose you have to decide which type of morality you want to practice.
Again, this is super irrelevant. No one save God cares about your personal moral view.

Morality is a social phenomenon - it’s the rules for a multi-player game. What one thinks individually couldn’t be less relevant. It’s what we commonly agree upon that bears any materiality.

As personal opinion is infinitely regressive it’s non-functioning. “Well, I think… No, I think…”

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.
 
Last edited:
Morality is a social phenomenon - it’s the rules for a multi-player game. What one thinks individually couldn’t be less relevant. It’s what we commonly agree upon that bears any materiality.
I suppose that if you wish to go down that dark road you may. But take a flashlight.

I’d love to hear your analysis of the moral “social phenomenon” at work in Germany from 1933 to 1945 which resulted in mass genocide, eugenics, human breeding experiments, torture, mass euthanasia, ethnic cleansing, global war and over 100 million deaths worldwide. How’s that for materiality?

So, one must assume, from your “moral” perspective, all of that was just fine since it was “commonly agreed upon” by a number of people in Germany? Or, could it be that your conceptual framework needs some tweaking? 😎
 
Last edited:
You can have morality without God. Unfortunately, it would work something like this…

Action are determined solely by the most primitive part of the brain governing base appetitive drives. These are concerned with three objects of instinct: pleasure instinct , life instinct and death instinct. These objects naturally come into conflict with one another. Conflict resolution is only achieve by instinct directing the will which results in action and a corresponding particular, subjective outcome.

Higher thought, deliberation or reliance upon legal codex, societal norms, or moral framework is entirely absent. Rather, moral instinctual action leads to prosperity and survival. Immoral instinctual action leads to privation and extinction. The ability to continue to carry out one’s vital functions is proof of correct moral action regardless of the type of act or effect upon others.

Indeed. The end result looks something like this…

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

😎
 
Last edited:
Well, if truth is so subjective,
I’m afraid I’ve failed to present my ideas in a manner which was properly received by you. Truth is truth and is independent of its recipients influence. My point is that getting to the truth is subjective and what truth is aptly applied to what circumstance is often a demonstration of mistaken or perverted perception.
 
40.png
Vonsalza:
Morality is a social phenomenon - it’s the rules for a multi-player game. What one thinks individually couldn’t be less relevant. It’s what we commonly agree upon that bears any materiality.
I suppose that if you wish to go down that dark road you may. But take a flashlight.

I’d love to hear your analysis of the moral “social phenomenon” at work in Germany from 1933 to 1945…
Even as Nazis never constituted more than 15-20% of Germans, it is no exception to the idea that individual morality is either unimportant or meaningless. They were simply following the ideology of their “god”.

Nietzsche predicted, accurately, that if man has decided that it’s killed god then it would have to worship itself in the form of the “Uber-man”; the super-man, the over-man, the man that would ideally exist.

For the irreligious Nazis and the atheistic communists, the intelligentsia elite (the functional analogue to Catholic episcopate) within each group crafted their own Uber-men to aspire to.

At no point did it become subjective, though. Rank-and-file Nazis and soviets didn’t get to determine the rules. Those were determined for them.
How’s that for materiality?
You’re skirting the core question with a strong bandwagon appeal and I understand entirely.

But the question remains - by what standard do you decry them as “wrong”? If it’s primarily your own gut, then let’s spare each other the expression of the sentiment because there are almost 8 billion other “guts” on this planet that are worth about the same as yours - to me, anyway.
So, one must assume, from your “moral” perspective, all of that was just fine since it was “commonly agreed upon” by a number of people in Germany? Or, could it be that your conceptual framework needs some tweaking? 😎
No tweaking needed - you missed the point.

It’s not right via democracy. Democracy is capricious. The woes of mob-rule are well known.

It was followed by the empowered Nazi minority because it was the ideal. It was “god”. It was self-evident, like every other god or god-substitute is to every other culture.

But please, please don’t let anyone knavishly confuse that reality with individual subjectivity.
 
Last edited:
B
Gunman: Are your children hiding in the house?
Read the paragraph again. It confirms rather than contradicts.

It says ‘This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.’

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’.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top