The Objective Morality Debate

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308079202' post='2253712']
I'd like to see a nun perform a service and communicate to the people. [/quote]
[img]http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n129/corsetti3/Mother_Teresa-1.jpg[/img]

[stevil]

[quote name='Theresita Nerita' timestamp='1308061981' post='2253606']
I like that idea. I've often thought of it when I think of people I know who are super amesome agnostics who totally have all the virtues you could want in a Christian without even trying, and I think, that's good of God, to give them everything I search and seek for without us having to reach the same "conclusions."
[/quote]
A great post, thanks for getting things back on track.
Contrary to what some people think, Atheists/Agnostics can be as you say "amesome". Many are humanists, many put much personal thought into their stance on things and many discuss and debate their thinking with others in order to gain a better understanding. We do not hold a view that Scripture or Church is divine and infallible, or even correct on anything. Thus we look to other means with regards to being good people.


[quote name='Theresita Nerita' timestamp='1308061981' post='2253606']
3) I would argue that it is fully revealed in the teachings of Jesus
[/quote]
If this is true then only Christians who study the teachings would have the ability to know Obj Mor. Even then it is not clear as scripture requires much interpretation as is not always literal.

[quote name='Theresita Nerita' timestamp='1308061981' post='2253606']
Even the Church recognizes that very few if any people know what is objectively morally right - hence the "knowledge" clause about mortal sin. What that basically means is that in God's judgment (unlike bigoted human judgments) it will be taken into account what we know, our ignorance of objective truth.
[/quote]
So its seems a tough ask. Subjectiveness does come into the picture. Would it seem reasonable then that people get their own house in order rather than trying to sort other people's houses out?
Let god judge, come judgment day.

[quote name='Theresita Nerita' timestamp='1308061981' post='2253606']
And I think, "Why couldn't you have made us a little bit smarter, God, so we could see a little clearer what is good?????"
[/quote]
Would I be right is saying that it seems that there is meant to be confusion?

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308078930' post='2253710']
I'm not trying to teach anyone that there is no god. I don't think we should have anti theist messages on money or any government related object. I don't think we should abolish churches or scripture.
But the government has no place for promoting Christianity or god either. The government needs to represent the people which includes all religions and non religions. This derailled argument is rather silly.
[/quote]


except this country was founded on a belief in God. maybe not a christian God but a God. the founding fathers had a belief in a higher power and they wrote it into american history. athiest are trying to change american history and how this country was built.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1308104111' post='2253858']
except this country was founded on a belief in God. maybe not a christian God but a God. the founding fathers had a belief in a higher power and they wrote it into american history. athiest are trying to change american history and how this country was built.
[/quote]As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308109607' post='2253908']
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
[/quote]


really? so the father who founded the united states of america did not say thses things:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

there are many more quotes but to claim that the founding fathers did not form this country with a belief in a higher power is weak. its in official documents.

[kujo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1308149186' post='2253995']
really? so the father who founded the united states of america did not say thses things:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

there are many more quotes but to claim that the founding fathers did not form this country with a belief in a higher power is weak. its in official documents.
[/quote]

See, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Catholic Cat did [b]not[/b] say that the Founding Fathers did not have a belief in a higher power. See for yourself

[quote]Mr.CatholicCat, on 14 June 2011 - 11:46 PM, said:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.[/quote]

I believe he was saying that is country was NOT founded as a "Christian nation," but was, rather, a nation formed BY (some) Christians and other theists whose education came by way of parochial schools.

By the way, which "father" were you speaking of when you said "the father who founded the united states of america did not say thses things?" Was it Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston or Roger Sherman, all of whom had a part in writing or editing the Declaration of Independence? Just post whatever you find on Wikipedia when you search for the answer, mk?

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307647164' post='2251707']
They wouldn't be the decider, they would assess the criteria and give the patient the option if the criteria is met.
[/quote]

So when the patient is old enough to make an informed decision, you will ask it whether it wants to be aborted or not? Isn't that a little bit too late?

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307533028' post='2251201']
Most Atheists are not gay but most Atheists recognise that gay people are just people and that as individuals we have no right to judge and condem other people and their love for each other as long as their love is mutual and consentual and they are deemed able to make appropriate decisions for themselves (e.g. not little children or an intellictually impared person being taken advantage of)
[/quote]

To this extent we agree. Although the Christian perspective is that love needn't be mutual, nor consensual for it to be appropriate. We're called to love everyone. (Yes, I know this isn't what you meant, but don't use euphemisms that hide what you're trying to say; if you want to say "putting anatomical pieces in places they aren't designed to be," just say that.)

[quote]
With regards to sex education and safe sex practices, we tend to recognise that sex is a healthy natural expression of love and lust. It is a part of life and without it our species would discontinue. We recognise that the vast majority of people participate in sex regardless of being taught to abstain. Sex education and safe sex practices reduce the risk of tranmitting disease and unwanted pregnancies.
I very much doubt we have this stance simply because we really want to have sex and would feel uncomfortable thinking that it is sinful.
[/quote]

This is interesting from you; if it were Christians believing something, you would be rather quick to say it's because we want to believe it. Why do you expect higher motives from non-Christians?

[quote]
The reasons are unclear and are most likely specific to each individual, regardless that the outcome is often the same, the path may be quite different and often is. Just because someone's outcome might be different from the majority, this does not mean that they are wrong.
All this confussion, different ways to think, different paths, different outcomes lead me to think that there is no absolute objective morality, that there is no way for humans to know absolutely what is right and what is wrong.
If you believe in god and hence believe that god knows what is right and wrong and hence god knows of the absolute morality, this just seems to me as an unacheivable nirvana state for humans. Your god does not appear to want you to know what the absolute morality is otherwise this would have been made crystal clear for all. Humans are fallible and flawed we will never be able to agree on and know what an absolute objective morality is. Does this mean that an absolute morality does not exist? No, but it is difficult for me to see any evidence that one does exist, it seems purely conceptual. For those that don't believe in god we won't agree with you when you say there is an absolute morality and only god knows it. For those that do believe in god but through different religions they will agree on the concept of absolute morality but will not agree on what it looks like.
[/quote]

To the contrary, the reasons are easy to understand, but they *do* require some research to fully grasp. It boils down to "persons must be treated with dignity and respect at all times, regardless of age, sex, or personal choices." To subscribe to the modern theories of sexuality, one eventually breaks that simple rule. Abortion, contraception, divorce, and child abandonment all result in disrespect for children. Contraception because it leads to abortion; but the other three quite obviously disrespect children. Divorce also is a crime against honesty, which is indirectly a disrespect to those that you promised. (This is also why the Church treats Christian marriage differently than non-Christian marriage; in non-Christian marriage the promise to honor until death may not have been given.)

The great thing about Christianity is that if you follow all the rules, you can do the right thing without understanding why it's the right thing, but you have the freedom to research it so that you understand the logic behind it.

[quote]
I disagree that we can know the truth by simply going by the majority view. there was a time when almost all people thought the world was flat, or thought that the sun revolved around the earth.
[/quote]

I'm not saying that we can know truth by majority view, I'm saying that societies form and thrive or are destroyed based upon their choices and the choices of those around them. This implies that they believed something to be true or false; this in turn implies that the vast majority of people throughout history have disagreed with your perspective; this begs that we look at *why* they disagreed.

[quote]
This is interesting, are you saying that the earthly consequence of a society not following god's objective morality means that the errant society will fail?
[/quote]

In a word: yes. This doesn't mean that they will fail immediately, however; nor will they fail completely. They will slowly stumble along until the evil purges itself, (possibly resulting in total annihilation of the culture) or the good gains a greater sway than the evil.

[quote]
But humans are fallible and flawed, we can never understand the complete picture.
[/quote]

Never the complete picture, but a large enough subset for us to function. Honestly, I wouldn't really want to understand why all the sands on the beach came to be where they were . . . it would just be too much minutiae for my poor brain to handle. (now if i had a brain that could handle it, i might be interested . . . ) It's sufficient for me to know that the tides breaking against the beach caused the sands to break up and end up there. And beaches are beautiful; I like knowing that as well.

[quote]
I like this post and agree with much of it and it has probably influenced my responses above.
But the funny thing is that it breaks a perception I have about religion.
I thought religion teaches that it knows the truth, that the truth is written within the bible. I didn't think religion encouraged people to look beyond, external and internal, to think, reason, question and deduce, I thought most religious people's thoughts were aligned with the teachings of their flavour of church.
[/quote]

Religions typically *do* teach that they know the truth. The truth *is* written in the bible, but not *all* truth. (The bible explicitly says that it can't tell us everything that Jesus did, let alone *everything* about *all* truth.) Of course we are meant to reason, that's why Catholics invented the scientific method. (Yes, I'm serious.) People are encouraged to question why Catholicism teaches what it does, but ultimately, if you can't prove the Church wrong, you should submit your will to that of the Church. (Thus far, the closest anyone has come to proving the Church wrong about faith or morals was Galileo . . . and that wasn't even about faith or morals.)

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307615682' post='2251603']
Is it possible to consider, that god doesn't want people to know the absolute objective truth. It certainly has not been revealed to a level of detail that is useful. Going by the discussions and actions of humans it seems collectively we don't have a clue.
[/quote]

If He hadn't come and told us so much about Himself and created a Church to safeguard this information, then yes.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307997797' post='2253294']
I think it's actually sort of amusing...makes it look like money needs a good luck charm written on it. I mean, why on money?
[/quote]
Because without that statement, fiat money doesn't have any value at all. (Sorry, I'm exposing my Austrianism here!)

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308079202' post='2253712']
I really do struggle to see how sex organs have anything to do with the role.
[/quote]
The trouble is that you're acting as if it were about organs. It's not, it's about what God made a person to do.

It is a profound disrespect to sexuality to say that people are nothing more than their sexual organs. There are many other differences that are associated; tenderness, strength, compassion, empathy, decisiveness, courage. I didn't say whether any of those are masculine or feminine, but I bet you placed most into one or the other category. This merely shows that there *are* differences that have little to do with the 'organs.'

If someone needs to store information about baseball, and I as a computer programmer design a system that sorts documents based on copyrights, don't use that program to store baseball info. I should have made one that stores info about baseball players, not tried to force a program to do what it wasn't meant to do. Similarly, God would have just made the woman a man if He meant her to be a priest.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308099856' post='2253823']
If this is true then only Christians who study the teachings would have the ability to know Obj Mor. Even then it is not clear as scripture requires much interpretation as is not always literal.
[/quote]

You missed the word "fully." Everyone would have access, but to fully understand everything, it's *easiest* to go through Catholic teaching because it is *fully* revealed there.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1307830365' post='2252482']
What isn't worth it? Answer my questions or investing the "science" (or lack of it) behind your beliefs?



I would agree that there appears to have been a gigantic increase in STDs and abortions in the last 60-70 years, though I would wonder whether there were some other explanatory factors behind the simple increase in amount of sexual partners each person has. Then there's the whole question regarding the accuracy and reliability of any data we had on such things outside of that time frame, especially as it pertains to abortions; how could we know how many abortions were occurring if it was illegal in some/most states in the U.S.?

I would also agree that the permissive mindset of our hyper-sexualized culture is undoubtedly one of the culprits in all of this.

I guess my main point isn't that the Church should revise its position; rather, I think that comprehensive sexual education (i.e- full course that gives equal weight to both abstinence AND contraceptives) ought to be taught in schools while the family and the churches should be dutiful and diligent in preaching the Gospel of Life and advocating for sexual morality. That balance is the only tenable thing to hope for; if we have ALL of the facts, we can make a better decision. That's my opinion anyway.
[/quote]
Contraception, abortion, and the permissive mindset of our hyper-sexualized culture are all related and interlinked, and feed off each other. With sexual activity separated from procreation in people's minds, we've got a culture where consequence-free sex is seen as a right. With contraception, people feel free to sleep around as much as they like without worrying about getting pregnant. And, if the rubber busts, or you forget the pill, there's always abortion as a back-up.

In our society, rampant abortion followed rampant contraception. That's historical fact.

Some months ago, I came across some good articles regarding the history of abortion in America, but unfortunately, I don't have the links now. While its hard to get exact numbers at anytime, the truth is that in the past abortions were hard to get - illegal in most places, and widely regarded as unspeakably shameful, and thus were avoided by most decent people. The whole spiel about millions of women dying from illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade has been exposed as nonsensical propaganda - by the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was among the first to propagate it.
In the past, we simply didn't have the same culture of easy sex, easy contraceptives, and easy abortion, as we do now.

As Catholics, we should be preaching virtue and morality, not "the lesser evil," especially as contraceptive sex is also a grave sin.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1308152623' post='2254016']See, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Catholic Cat did [b]not[/b] say that the Founding Fathers did not have a belief in a higher power. See for yourself



I believe he was saying that is country was NOT founded as a "Christian nation," but was, rather, a nation formed BY (some) Christians and other theists whose education came by way of parochial schools.

By the way, which "father" were you speaking of when you said "the father who founded the united states of america did not say thses things?" Was it Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston or Roger Sherman, all of whom had a part in writing or editing the Declaration of Independence? Just post whatever you find on Wikipedia when you search for the answer, mk?[/quote]You are one of the smarter Catholics I have seen recently, you are a credit to you're fellow believers. Too bad they don't see you that way. I was hopeful someone would be kind enough to discover where I quoted that statement from, as it was unanimously ratified by the senate within the lives of the founding fathers of the United States...

Edited June 15, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[kujo]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308167601' post='2254136']
You are one of the smarter Catholics I have seen recently, you are a credit to you're fellow believers. Too bad they don't see you that way.[/quote]



[quote]I was hopeful someone would be kind enough to discover where I quoted that statement from, as it was unanimously ratified by the senate within the lives of the founding fathers of the United States...
[/quote]

[url="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html"]Treaty of Tripoli (January 3rd, 1797):[/url]

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.