Within Catholicism, how can morality be objective?

[Verdanty]

Very often I hear the term “relativist” be thrown about, usually as a slur that morality cannot be situational or depend on other factors. There is always an objective right and an objective wrong, based upon the unchanging will of God.

I don’t see how this can logically follow from the scriptures. Certainly, in this view all morality is based upon the decrees and will of the all-powerful creator but there I see a problem; the creator himself changes his mind about what is or isn’t morally acceptable.

Let’s take Mosaic Law for instance. Previously it was acceptable for a man to take more than one wife, but since Jesus revealed himself it must now be one woman per man. I have heard it said that this was because God made special allowances as he revealed himself across time; he never liked polygamy but permitted it for a time because humans were weak and were not ready for the fullness of revelation.

This runs into a problem. Polygamy is a sin today that automatically consigns one to hell as adultery, since he can only have one valid wife, is a sin. Jacob and other patriarchs were guilty of this, however they are also considered saints who were taken from the bosom of Abraham to Heaven after Christ.

Saints Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

Ergo, what today will consign oneself to hell back then was not an obstacle to a heavenly reward. God has transformed a morally neutral action into a mortal sin and holds modern day men to a far higher standard; understandable but if that isn’t relativistic: what is?

Can anyone please explain this for me?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

These problems are somewhat assuaged if you subscribe to virtue ethics, which is a leading moral philosophy in the Church, though not the only one. According to virtue ethics, the virtues are determined by the nature of human flourishing (which is NOT relative). It’s not impossible that human flourishing, however, could be achieved by different habits of behavior in different eras of history. So the end is objective, but the means subjective.

This probably isn’t the only way of solving the problem, but it is one way. I do not think that having three wives in 500 BC was adultery, but having three wives now is. “Adultery”, on this view, would just mean “not keeping the commitments of a marriage relationship that tend toward human flourishing”.

And note: nothing in my account suggests that there couldn’t be actions (e.g. killing an innocent) that don’t tend toward human flourishing in any era.

 

[Verdanty]

Most interesting, thank you.

To what does the Church ascribe the value of being “human flourishing”? What does it consider “flourishing” to be? I imagine Virtue Ethics also being used to explain how incest was previously acceptable, so perhaps it is intertwined with the raising of a family unit? I see trouble with this if it is so, because one could make an argument that one woman and seven husbands or two women rearing children could also contribute to “flourishing” because they could form a stable unit from which to adopt/produce heirs.

I also see a more grave flaw in this argument, that the ends can justify the means. I read earlier today on the Runaway Trolley problem thread that pushing someone in front of a train to stop it killing four other people was not morally acceptable, in this view it would be because it promotes “flourishing” in preserving life. Could I not too contribute to human “flourishing” by driving round the country shooting abortionists? Since in this case the ends would bring around the saving of a good number of unborn children. I could likewise take violent action against non-Catholic religions, because true flourishing for humanity would be a world without heresy preventing steps towards a truly universal church under the successor of Peter.

It is a nice approach, but one that seems to have a good many holes in it. As you note, even murder of innocents could not be ruled out; the true good would depend on the context and purpose; or in other words it would be relative.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I have a longer response planned, but one comment first:

As you note, even murder of innocents could not be ruled out

That’s not what I said. I said quite the opposite, that there may be actions that are always wrong, because they NEVER tend toward human flourishing. I would classify murder of innocents and rape under that umbrella.

 

[Verdanty]

they NEVER tend toward human flourishing.

It seems I misread that, I do apologize.

But if that is the case: Suppose you had the chance to drown Hitler at birth and you could save all the victims of the Holocaust; how does that not pertain to human flourishing? It may sound extreme but that’s certainly not outside the power of an omniscient and omnipotent God no? What to of the Angel that slew all the firstborn children in Egypt, or the Israelite soldiers commanded to slaughter the babies of their felled foes?

In the case of Hitler he would be innocent at that time, since he hadn’t committed murder yet. In the latter I do not see how the slaughter of babies of the other semetic races near Caanan at the time could contribute to wider human flourishing.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m not advocating for utilitarianism; virtue ethics is nothing like that. You’ve missed the words “TEND TOWARD”. It may be the case that, in a given case, murdering an innocent would lead to more happiness. But that’s irrelevant to the issue. In virtue ethics, what matters is what certain character traits tend toward. The viciousness and malice that would be needed to kill the child Hitler is not something consonant with human flourishing. A person who would do something like that is not going to live the good life.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And again, I can explain this better later; right now I have to go to a party. All the best!

 

[1ke]

Let’s take Mosaic Law for instance. Previously it was acceptable for a man to take more than one wife, but since Jesus revealed himself it must now be one woman per man.

You confuse man’s actions with God’s. God’s law has always been monogamous marriage. The Jews and others allowed polygamous unions, divorce, and al manner of things in their culture. It is a common mistake to think that because something is recorded in the bible it must have been ordained by God. No, this is not true. God allows free will.

Regarding marriage as it evolved in the Semitic culture, Jesus tells us, it was not that way in the beginning.

 

[Verdanty]

In virtue ethics, what matters is what certain character traits tend toward. The viciousness and malice that would be needed to kill the child Hitler is not something consonant with human flourishing.

But that does not compute with human flourishing, because while killing baby Hitler would take a certain type of coldness of character it prevents a far greater damage towards human flourishing from being undertaken. We would need to build a case that Hitler’s life was necessary for human flourishing, a challenging undertaking at best.

Let us take a more direct example then. What if you had a chance to kill baby Martin Luther? Now he might not be responsible directly for quite so many deaths personally, but in the Catholic view how many people has he sent to hell with his errors. Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the Church, fully advocates the slaughter of heretics when he states “it is better to cut off a branch than to lose the whole tree”. In this sense, you are saving the sole intrument for mankinds salvation from irreparable damage no?

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut so far, I appreciate it

 

[Verdanty]

You confuse man’s actions with God’s. God’s law has always been monogamous marriage. The Jews and others allowed polygamous unions, divorce, and al manner of things in their culture. It is a common mistake to think that because something is recorded in the bible it must have been ordained by God. No, this is not true. God allows free will.

This does not solve our immediate problem. Jacob is confirmed by the Catholic Church to be in heaven. Had he lived post-Jesus he would be burning in hell as a bigamist.

This is a clearly relativist double standard, God is not offended by Jacobs sin but he is by modern day Catholics who attempt it in Africa. Why does Jacob get this sin ignored whereas Zara the tribesman will go to hell?

 

[1ke]

This does not solve our immediate problem. Jacob is confirmed by the Catholic Church to be in heaven.

There is no problem. Grave matter objectively offends God. Mortal sin requires knowledge and an act of free will in addition to grave matter.

Had he lived post-Jesus he would be burning in hell as a bigamist.

This is an opinion, not a teaching of the Catholic Church. You can’t say he would be in hell. It’s conjecture, as mortal sin requires not only grave matter but the personal elements of knowledge and will.

This is a clearly relativist double standard, God is not offended by Jacobs sin but he is by modern day Catholics who attempt it in Africa.

It is not a double standard. You haven’t established that Jacob committed sin, only that he engaged in something that is objectively grave matter.

Why does Jacob get this sin ignored whereas Zara the tribesman will go to hell?

You haven’t, nor can you, establish that anyone has committed a sin, nor can you know what they may have repented of. We don’t know what God showed the Patriarchs during his time in Sheol before he opened heaven.

I don’t know of Catholic polygamous tribesmen. I believe you are talking about those who follow indigenous religions, and the Church makes no pronouncement that they are sinning, only that objectively polygamy is grave matter. If someone comes to the Church for instruction, they are told of the commandments and God’s plan for marriage. If they have more than one wife, they must cease the polygamous activity to receive baptism.

 

[Verdanty]

There is no problem. Grave matter objectively offends God. Mortal sin requires knowledge and an act of free will in addition to grave matter.

Is that not relativistic? It is only a sin if you know I think it is a sin? Unless of course it’s murder, in which case unless I tell you to kill them (such as when the Israelites were ordered to kill the babies of their felled enemies) it’s also a sin.

It looks to me like circumstantial relativistic ethics, the same ones certain groups are up in arms about for supposedly being in Amoris Latetita

This is an opinion, not a teaching of the Catholic Church. You can’t say he would be in hell. It’s conjecture, as mortal sin requires not only grave matter but the personal elements of knowledge and will.

The Catholic Church teaches that anyone who dies in mortal sin is bound for hell. And besides, would this not be self evident from natural law? After all, some things are supposed to be obvious and discernible from the wonder of creation around us such as the existence of God, or that Sodomy is evil. In the case of the latter two, the Church teaches that their evil is inexcusable.

It is not a double standard. You haven’t established that Jacob committed sin, only that he engaged in something that is objectively grave matter.

Grave matter and mortal sin are one and the same. They are both serious sins, and thus not being venial must by necessity be placed in the only alternative category should they not?

You haven’t, nor can you, establish that anyone has committed a sin, nor can you know what they may have repented of. We don’t know what God showed the Patriarchs during his time in Sheol before he opened heaven.

Does it matter what he showed them? They’re dead, they no longer have the capacity to repent or make choices. This is why the damned will remain in hell for all eternity, such as the story of the man in hell who asked his still-living brothers be warned so they could avoid his fate. He mourned his sin, but there was no hope for redemption.

 

[Verdanty]

I don’t know of Catholic polygamous tribesmen. I believe you are talking about those who follow indigenous religions, and the Church makes no pronouncement that they are sinning, only that objectively polygamy is grave matter. If someone comes to the Church for instruction, they are told of the commandments and God’s plan for marriage. If they have more than one wife, they must cease the polygamous activity to receive baptism.

I’m thinking primarily of the difficulties the Catholic Church in Uganda has faced in stamping out polygamy. Because many of the priests have several parishes under their control, it’s not unusual for them to convert locals, come back several weeks later and discover their converts have taken on a second wife and are unwilling to give them up.

That’s okay for Jacob, who probably in all truth lived in more civilized and affluent luxury than some of them but not for Zara who is held to a higher standard.

If they have more than one wife, they must cease the polygamous activity to receive baptism.

But again, Jacob could enjoy Gods favor, but they will be rebuked unless they recant their sin.

 

[DarkLight]

This is a clearly relativist double standard, God is not offended by Jacobs sin but he is by modern day Catholics who attempt it in Africa. Why does Jacob get this sin ignored whereas Zara the tribesman will go to hell?

I’ll weigh in more later, but the general idea is that one has to be aware that one is committing a sin in order to be held accountable for it. Someone who through lack of knowledge of the moral law, commits a sin, is not accountable in the same way as someone who knows it’s a sin.

Of course, there are degrees of ignorance. For example, what’s called crass ignorance does not typically excuse - this occurs where the individual has ready access to the law and a duty to find out what it is, but refuses.

 

[1ke]

Is that not relativistic? It is only a sin if you know I think it is a sin?

No. Sin is always an intentional act against God. Those things that are objectively wrong are always wrong. But we have to know it is wrong and choose to do it in order to SIN.

God revealed the truth to us. We may know it. But if someone doesn’t know, then he does wrong, he hurts himself or others, but he does not sin against God.

I would encourage you to read about the fonts of morality and human acts in the Catechism.

 

[1ke]

but not for Zara who is held to a higher standard.

You are assuming things about the made up tribesman you don’t know as a fact.

 

[Rau]

Verdanty, I think you posted under a different name previously, can you remind me…?

 

[1ke]

Does it matter what he showed them? They’re dead, they no longer have the capacity to repent or make choices.

Perhaps it does matter.

We don’t really know how god dealt with those in the limbo of the fathers.

 

[1ke]

Ok I’m out. I’ve got football to watch.

 

[Rau]

Grave matter and mortal sin are one and the same.

Oh my. What is objective is one thing. What it means to “commit sin” is another. Only the latter can get you into trouble with God.