Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?

[o_mlly]

OK. So your argument is that because you have no evidence of Jesus having lied, then you can risk your children’s lives by playing word games with an axe muderer on the off chance he thinks the basement is in fact part of the house.

Two things spring to mind. Firstly, the more bizarre the examples in these discussions get, the more bizarre the answers. And secondly, we seem to have different priorities.

Emotion often blocks right reason; count to ten before acting. The heroic virtuous act would be to die for your children. The vicious act would be to lie. Acts in between these extremes may be permissible.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

OK. So your argument is that because you have no evidence of Jesus having lied, then you can risk your children’s lives by playing word games with an axe muderer on the off chance he thinks the basement is in fact part of the house.

Two things spring to mind. Firstly, the more bizarre the examples in these discussions get, the more bizarre the answers. And secondly, we seem to have different priorities.

Emotion often blocks right reason; count to ten before acting. The heroic virtuous act would be to die for your children. The vicious act would be to lie. Acts in between these extremes may be permissible.

Killing in an act of self defense is permissable (assuming that it was the only option). So it strikes me as beyond bizarre that killing Harry the Neighbourhood Axe Murderer could be allowed but telling him a lie would not.

Do you in all honesty think that God would prefer you not lie in these sort of situations? Wouldn’t you think that a fair minded God would allow it to ensure the safety of all? Wouldn’t any reasonable person think that your semantic attempt to play a get-out-of-jail card for yourself (because the only negative consequences should you lie would, one assumes you to believe, be on your head) is unconscionable?

Oddly enough, most people would agree that lying to benefit yourself would be wrong. But you are suggesting that you would avoid lying to benefit yourself.

 

[o_mlly]

Killing in an act of self defense is permissable (assuming that it was the only option). So it strikes me as beyond bizarre that killing Harry the Neighbourhood Axe Murderer could be allowed but telling him a lie would not.

The lethal act in self-defense does not intend the killing but the saving of life; an act which pleases the Almighty. Lying, on the other hand, is always an offense against the Truth and is always evil. Spend some time reading your catechism and you will find the teachings are not “bizarre” but quite reasonable.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Killing in an act of self defense is permissable (assuming that it was the only option). So it strikes me as beyond bizarre that killing Harry the Neighbourhood Axe Murderer could be allowed but telling him a lie would not.

The lethal act in self-defense does not intend the killing but the saving of life; an act which pleases the Almighty. Lying, on the other hand, is always an offense against the Truth and is always evil. Spend some time reading your catechism and you will find the teachings are not “bizarre” but quite reasonable.

Kinda funny that you believe that a lethal act to save a life pleases God. But lying to save a life does not.

But I do agree. The teachings aren’t the problem.

 

[o_mlly]

Kinda funny that you believe that a lethal act to save a life pleases God. But lying to save a life does not.

But I do agree. The teachings aren’t the problem.

In order to relieve your humor and support your error, all you need do is cite the teaching that says lying is permissible. I won’t hold my breath.

 

[Aulef]

There are certain moral obligations that were revaled to humankind. For instance, to know, to love and to serve God is a reavealed moral obligation.

By the same token, the supernatural virtues (Faith, Hope and Charity) are also ones that were revealed and that we can’t achieve without supernatural grace

 

[setarcos]

I want to know what position you take on any moral position that conflicts with this ‘objective morality’ we seem to have.

Ok, just to randomly pick a moral position some hold that I do not…(FGM) female genital mutilation. Practiced by many tribes in aftrica, the Philippines, certain tribes in the upper Amazon, women of the Arunta tribe in Australia etc. all by definition culturally moral practices according to the accepted objective morality of the groups which practice it despite any innate moral aversion within those groups. My objective morality in conflict with those peoples considers the practice immoral and I believe this is closer in line with my innate sense of morality.

If you were a member of the Inquisition you would have thought that torture was morally acceptable.

Objectively, but I would have been wrong. My innate sense of morality would have been in conflict with this perception causing some inner turmoil with which I would have had to grapple.

If you were a Christian land owner in 19th century America you would have thought slavery was morally acceptable.

Again…perfectly acceptable within my objective moral view. Innately I would sense conflict, given that my objective sense of morality influenced by the times, places, and people which I am surrounded by hadn’t completely rendered my innate sense of morality ineffectual in its influences. This is the loss of the recognition of the light of God given grace among the fires of worldly influences.

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

I believe 1) There are many times aspects of objective Morality which are not in line with our universal innate morality which cause a resolution conflict within us.
and 2) The aspects which may be wrong in objective morality are often hard to recognize and even impossible within the groups that have formulated a particular objective morality which may be in conflict with innate morality. How do we bring the one in line with the other? Prayer, faith in God, and reason - though innate morality may trump reason in some cases. I believe since innate morality is a God given grace, to define it to a point of universal application for all peoples is impossible since a sense of objective morality applied to local situations often overwhelms innate morality rendering it ineffectual in advising our actions. Some are lost to their sense of innate morality and perhaps only through Gods will may they ever be able to sense it again.

 

[Wozza]

Dear me.

So slavery would be ‘perfectly acceptable’ but ‘innately you would sense conflict’.

Well, that’s quite a thigh slapper. I’m sure all slave owners, dealers, traders and suppliers would have said exactly the same. As tbey went all a-bed they would be thinking: ‘Well, I did a great deal of honest trade today. But…why do Infeel this innate sense of conflict. Maybe my objective sense of morality influenced by the times, places, and people which I am surrounded by hasn’t completely rendered my innate sense of morality ineffectual in its influences’.

Great stuff.

 

[Aquinas11]

Wow a lot of math going on in this forum

1. “My objective morality” = first figure out this number
2. “My innate sense of morality” = then figure out this number

Subtract 1) from 2) and if the answer is > 0, then it is ok.

Seems pretty straightforward

P.S. “my objective” = oxymoron of the year

 

[setarcos]

I believe you’ve made a fundamental error in your premise. I believe Morality is not instinctual.
Our innate morality often comes into conflict with our instinctual appetites whether it is the instinct to seek pleasure - Morality is often in conflict with our hedonistic desires, or the instinct to live - our sense of morality sometimes over rules our instinct for self preservation in order to save another from dying, even if that other is a stranger for instance. I’m not sure what you mean by the death instinct? Our desire to live on after death perhaps? Even this is tempered by our sense of Morality not instinct. It is not instinctual to believe in a continued life after death. Our instinct is to avoid dying in the first place. Natural instinct does not inform our actions based upon potential states of being but on the present state of being. Its not instinctual to develop a future scenario of an afterlife after witnessing death. It is instinctual to seek to avoid doing what got the person who you see is dead deceased in the first place. This is simply a form of the instinct for self preservation based on you perceived present state.

 

[setarcos]

No, you’ve misinterpreted my meaning. Slavery would be innately wrong. However by the standards of the objective morality of the culture in which the slave owner finds him/her self it would be deemed acceptable.

Maybe my objective sense of morality influenced by the times, places, and people which I am surrounded by hasn’t completely rendered my innate sense of morality ineffectual in its influences’.

Other than actually having an inner dialogue with themselves as you somewhat sarcastically present, yes I believe many of the great men and women who break with the norm of their times in favor of their strong inner convictions are baring witness to the triumph of their innate sense of morality over the accepted objective morality of their culture, country, or family.

 

[Wozza]

No, you’ve misinterpreted my meaning. Slavery would be innately wrong. However by the standards of the objective morality of the culture in which the slave owner finds him/her self it would be deemed acceptable.

Wozza:

Maybe my objective sense of morality influenced by the times, places, and people which I am surrounded by hasn’t completely rendered my innate sense of morality ineffectual in its influences’.

Other than actually having an inner dialogue with themselves as you somewhat sarcastically present, yes I believe many of the great men and women who break with the norm of their times in favor of their strong inner convictions are baring witness to the triumph of their innate sense of morality over the accepted objective morality of their culture, country, or family.

Gosh. How far backwards do you have to bend to deny admitting that you were wrong.

What on earth would have been your argument AGAINST slavery in tbose times? You wouldn’t have had one. There is no way on God’s little blue planet that you could have said, at the time, that it was inherrently wrong. It would have been entirely acceptable.

So who gives you the right to declare anything wrong now? Q

 

[setarcos]

Perhaps you haven’t read all my posts so you are misunderstanding my terms. What I mean by “objective morality” versus “innate morality”.
I define Objective morality as that which a culture, family, country, any group of people with common beliefs, or individuals which is a set of accepted behaviors which produce a particular correct result within the context of their personal situational ideations. Objective morality in this sense is universal within the inclusive peoples but not necessarily considered moral outside these groups or individuals.
In contrast…I believe innate morality is universally given to humans by God’s grace and is a component of human nature. I believe this innate component found in all humans is often in conflict with objective morality.

 

[Aquinas11]

“Slavery would be innately wrong. However by the standards of the objective morality of the culture in which the slave owner finds him/her self it would be deemed acceptable.”

Yes yes we get it. You would have been PRIVATELY OUTRAGED (“Innately I would sense conflict”), yet PUBLICLY PERMISSIBLE WITH (“perfectly acceptable within my objective moral view”). That’s quite a stance you have there. Pretty edgy.

 

[Wozza]

So as a slave owner you would somehow know it was ‘inately wrong’ but accept it as ‘obectively good’ because it was the norm. Quite an internal conflict.

I really think you you need to think this through.

 

[Aquinas11]

I define Objective morality as that which a culture, family, country, any group of people with common beliefs, or individuals which is a set of accepted behaviors which produce a particular correct result within the context of their personal situational ideations

That’s not “objective” because its not FIXED for all cultures/families/etc. Sure, the FORMULA is fixed (“that which a culture…set of accepted behaviors…”), but the RESULT IS VARIABLE. Objective morality has a FIXED RULES for ALL cultures.

Objective morality = non aggression principle = prohibits all non-consensual use of force against another

 

[setarcos]

Oh brother…here we go. Are you one of those who thinks it more important to show the other person is wrong than to reason together?
Are you not in these times witness to history? Have you not studied anything of the great men and women who have came before us. Their sacrifices, their achievements? Their martyrdom in some cases? What made them great was their faithfulness to their own convictions despite the objections - sometimes violent - of their contemporaries. The first man who said “wait human sacrifice is immoral”, the Nazi who tried to save Jews instead of extinguish them, the Soldier who fed and gave water to the defeated enemy instead of summarily executing them, the saint who refused to renounce the teachings of Christ and was burned alive for his efforts? And yes, the white man who stood up for the black man despite the objective morality of the surrounding crowds which declared him a lessor being fit only for slavery. How do you think social progress was ever achieved? How was slavery ever abolished? In 18th century America is was collectively deemed “objectively moral” that the black peoples should be enslaved. Even many clergy preached as much. Was it moral? It was declared objectively moral. I believe it was always innately moral. I believe the only way these things are eventually overcome is when the conflict between objective morality and our innate morality become more in line with each other.

So who gives you the right to declare anything wrong now?

I never said I had any particular right to declare any particular thing wrong. I can only surmise that at times I can feel innately that some things are wrong. I believe this sense comes from Gods grace deposited universally within all human beings.

 

[setarcos]

Yes! I believe when our innate sense of morality comes into conflict with the objective morality we are following there is turmoil within the soul. Some feel this turmoil more than others, some less. Some people have suppressed their innate sense of morality for so long or so willingly for what ever reason that their inner sense of morality is all but ineffectual in any influence upon their feelings and behavior as to cause no turmoil whatsoever. These are people who’s morality is dictated entirely by the situation or desires they find themselves in and not by what would be deemed universally correct behavior.

 

[Aquinas11]

I can only surmise that at times I can feel innately that some things are wrong. I believe this sense comes from Gods grace deposited universally within all human beings.

NO, the mere existence of sociopaths proves this wrong. God doesn’t install morality in all of us like software. He REVEALS it to us via 10 commandments, Jesus Gospel, etc. It is OBJECTIVELY communicated to us. Some societies ignore it, some don’t. All irrelevant. The OBJECTIVELY COMMUNICATED morality is unchanging.

 

[setarcos]

I understand how you defining the term. However if we define objective morality as a fixed set of rules of behavior for all cultures then in reality it does not exist. Unless what you define as objective morality is closer to what I define as innate morality. Even the bible says that a person can behave in a way he “thinks” is correct but still be wrong. Objective morality in this sense is a kind of mob mentality or perverted justification of ones behavior depending on how out of line with innate morality it is.
You cant simply define objective morality as what prohibits non-consensual use of force since morality occasionally deals with acts of force. Think of our loving father who punishes those he loves…so says scripture. Anyone who consensually asks to be punished would in my view be a masochist.