The Objective Morality Debate

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1307392196' post='2250547']
True[no pun intended].

You can also say, b/c one does not know an objective truth does not mean it does not exist.[/quote]

Yes, but it only becomes Truth once it's shown to exist.

[Didacus]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307358372' post='2250394']
This absolutely makes sense.

But the problem is that the observer needs the ability to know the truth.
As an analogy,
In space we don't have a point of reference to know what a stationary object is. We can know if something is moving relative to us or not, but we can't know if anything is staying absolutely still. If you inject god into the equation, you could say that god knows what a stationary object is. This is all fine and dandy for god, but for us, we have a problem. God is non interactive and non observable. We cannot ask god to show us a stationary object and get the answer. Thus we must use other tools at our disposal. Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity, since we cannot know what a stationary point is we must model the universe relative, this means that distance and time also become relative and speed of light becomes absolute. This may not be the most accurate way to look at our universe especially from god's point of view, but it is the best we can do.

So coming out of the anology you could say that god knows the truth. Which is fine and dandy, but how can we know the truth? If we can't see an absolute point of reference then we must use other tools at our disposal. With god being non interactive and non observable we must default to a society driven morality, this morality is subjective.

Please explain how this morality could be absolute (objective)?
[/quote]


Jesus is the face of God, came to the world and died for us. God is interactive.

Now, if you don't believe in that, then we can get technical. As humans, we have what it takes to discern rigth and wrong. When it hurts, we know it is undesireable. And we have reason which allows us to distinguish between what is logical and what is not. so yes, society has the ability to select a subjective form of morals, but it does have the tools to make an objective judgment should it make the effort to this end.

You started your post by saying it makes absolute sense - how do you know it makes absolute sense?
Give yourself a genuine answer to that, and you'll have a genuine answer to your question.

[stevil]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1307389025' post='2250515']
St. Aquinas started most of his arguments in his Summa with the words "It seems," or "It would seem," and then argued against it. Things are not always what they seem.

I would argue that you're wrong - that it was written on your heart that Euthanasia is wrong, and that you've simply chosen to ignore that, based on what you have heard from biased sources. But you're not alone. We all do that ...[/quote]
So some are saying that objective morality is written in our hearts, hence presumably we all know what is wrong and what is right, we would all agree with each other and be happy shiny people.

But,
We are either corrupted or we don't know how to read our hearts correctly.
So how do we solve this problem? Does this mean that the majority consensus would be correct since we all have our hearts written with exactly the same objective morality, the corrupted hearts will have differing opinions and the non corrupted will be aligned, hence they are more likely to win in a consensus?

Instead of having organisation such as churches, teach us moralities, shouldn't we simply trust our hearts and instead learn techniques to listen to our hearts. Maybe meditation which can clear the mind and relax the body, block out the world and allow us to explore our innerself.
If organisations teach us moralities then we will align with the teachings which may not be aligned with our hearts. This way we find Catholics have one view of objective morality, Protestants another, Jews yet another, Muslims, Bhudists and Hindis with their own, all aligned with their teachings, yet different from each other.

On the other hand Atheists have no common moral teachings and yet the vast majority of Atheists are pro Euthanasia, pro sex education, pro contraceptives, pro safe sexual practices and pro homosexuality. How is it that Atheists who are spread around the world, seperated by cultural barries with no common moral teachings are aligned on these things that the Catholics are adamantly apposed to? That the Catholics would deem as objective immorals.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1307389555' post='2250522']
What drives an atheist to treat others as they would like to be treated?
[/quote]
A humanistic view, a social view, good parents, etc, there could be many valid reasons, i would not like to assume one above the others. We are somewhat influenced by our societies and cultures. As a species we have evolved from the need to propogate the strongest genes and hence do not fight to the death for the right to mate with the pack. There are many social animals in nature, that take care of their own, they show sympathy and support and treat each other as if they were themselves. e.g. Elephants.


[quote name='Didacus' timestamp='1307410514' post='2250645']
Jesus is the face of God, came to the world and died for us. God is interactive.
[/quote]
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was told that Catholics believe that god's last revelation (interaction) was when the last apostle died (2,000) years ago.

[quote name='Didacus' timestamp='1307410514' post='2250645']
but it does have the tools to make an objective judgment should it make the effort to this end.
[/quote]
Please tell me what tools those are?

[quote name='Didacus' timestamp='1307410514' post='2250645']
You started your post by saying it makes absolute sense - how do you know it makes absolute sense?
Give yourself a genuine answer to that, and you'll have a genuine answer to your question.
[/quote]
It makes sense that the truth does not change depending on the observer, however I don't think that morality is a matter of truth vs lies.
I could tell you that I had sex before marrage. This would be the truth. My act of having sex before marrage is neither truth nor lies, it was simply an act. Your judgement on my act is that it was either moral or immoral, I would guess in this case you would think immoral due to the teachings of the church. So it would be true that you would think my having sex before marrage was immoral. However this still does not make my action as truth or lies. Most atheists would see my action as being neutral having no bearing on being good (moral) or bad (immoral), they would be non judgemental in this instance, So it would be true that they would think my act of having sex before marriage as being morally neutral.

This is all by the by.
What I am searching for is a common understanding as to what is meant when a Catholic states that there is objective morality.
Obviously it does not mean that all people know the morals and would agree on a morality baseline. (this is why atheists generally disagree with the concept of objective morality)
Is this simply a theological concept, a concept that god created morality, god knows morality and all people will be judged by god against this morality?
The problem is that people can't know what this morality baseline is, people don't agree and we cannot simply ask the authority for the answers. Most people don't even agree on who the authority is and some people don't even think that there is an intelligent authority

[Papist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307392873' post='2250553']
Yes, but it only becomes Truth once it's shown to exist.
[/quote]
No. It is always True, before and after being revealed to you. Once it has been revealed to you, you must submit.

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307441402' post='2250732']
A humanistic view, a social view, good parents, etc, there could be many valid reasons, i would not like to assume one above the others. We are somewhat influenced by our societies and cultures. As a species we have evolved from the need to propogate the strongest genes and hence do not fight to the death for the right to mate with the pack. There are many social animals in nature, that take care of their own, they show sympathy and support and treat each other as if they were themselves. e.g. Elephants.
[/quote]
For what reason was humanism created? What is social view? Please tell me you are not saying we need to be good for goodness sake. There are some species in the animal kingdom that eat their young. Will that justify humans eating their young?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1307443839' post='2250739']
No. It is always True, before and after being revealed to you. Once it has been revealed to you, you must submit.
[/quote]

That's what everyone with claims to objective morality says. How do you know that what has been revealed to you (to use your words) is from the true source?

And how do you know this well enough to feel justified in imposing it on others?

Edited June 7, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Papist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307450909' post='2250759']
That's what everyone with claims to objective morality says. How do you know that what has been revealed to you (to use your words) is from the true source?

And how do you know this well enough to feel justified in imposing it on others?
[/quote]
Ah! That's the real question. What is the source of Truth. If everyone has different sets of truths, then there is no real truth in our society.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307441402' post='2250732']
But,
We are either corrupted or we don't know how to read our hearts correctly.
So how do we solve this problem? Does this mean that the majority consensus would be correct since we all have our hearts written with exactly the same objective morality, the corrupted hearts will have differing opinions and the non corrupted will be aligned, hence they are more likely to win in a consensus?
[/quote]

Hey! You just stumbled on original sin!

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307441402' post='2250732']
Instead of having organisation such as churches, teach us moralities, shouldn't we simply trust our hearts and instead learn techniques to listen to our hearts. Maybe meditation which can clear the mind and relax the body, block out the world and allow us to explore our innerself.
If organisations teach us moralities then we will align with the teachings which may not be aligned with our hearts. This way we find Catholics have one view of objective morality, Protestants another, Jews yet another, Muslims, Bhudists and Hindis with their own, all aligned with their teachings, yet different from each other.

On the other hand Atheists have no common moral teachings and yet the vast majority of Atheists are pro Euthanasia, pro sex education, pro contraceptives, pro safe sexual practices and pro homosexuality. How is it that Atheists who are spread around the world, seperated by cultural barries with no common moral teachings are aligned on these things that the Catholics are adamantly apposed to? That the Catholics would deem as objective immorals.
[/quote]

Yes, Atheists the world over tend to agree on those things. This, however can imply multiple things: one implication is that they are looking at something objectively, another is that they have a selfish interest in this, or a misguided sense of compassion.

Are they looking at things more objectively than all other societies of the day? This would imply that 90+% of the world's societies throughout history have looked at these things non-objectively. It's possible, but unlikely that the rest of the world's societies would have all become caught in such a silly bunch of delusions as to think that marriage was important and euthanasia was bad.

Do they have a selfish interest in this? Perhaps. Probably so in the case of sexuality, but this doesn't rule out other causes.

Is it a misguided sense of compassion? If so, the societies that adopt those policies could become unstable and eventually collapse. This could explain why societies that subscribed to such theories in the past have not survived to the present. It's entirely possible that this is the 'religious effect' that you've been looking for; the one that explains why religion improves a society's evolutionary chance of success.

[quote name='stevil']
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was told that Catholics believe that god's last revelation (interaction) was when the last apostle died (2,000) years ago.
[/quote]

What you heard was partially correct; but the key is that you misunderstood the term 'Revelation.' We believe that in specific instances God interacts with people in a miraculous way; however "Public Revelation" ended with the death of the last of the Apostles. Public Revelation is the revealing of God by God for everyone to believe. Private Revelation is the revealing of God by God for the benefit of "some" people. ("some" could mean millions or only one individual.) Public Revelation must be believed by all Christians. Private Revelation may be believed or doubted according to the choice of the individual.

[quote name='stevil']
It makes sense that the truth does not change depending on the observer, however I don't think that morality is a matter of truth vs lies.
I could tell you that I had sex before marrage. This would be the truth. My act of having sex before marrage is neither truth nor lies, it was simply an act. Your judgement on my act is that it was either moral or immoral, I would guess in this case you would think immoral due to the teachings of the church. So it would be true that you would think my having sex before marrage was immoral. However this still does not make my action as truth or lies. Most atheists would see my action as being neutral having no bearing on being good (moral) or bad (immoral), they would be non judgemental in this instance, So it would be true that they would think my act of having sex before marriage as being morally neutral.

This is all by the by.
What I am searching for is a common understanding as to what is meant when a Catholic states that there is objective morality.
Obviously it does not mean that all people know the morals and would agree on a morality baseline. (this is why atheists generally disagree with the concept of objective morality)
Is this simply a theological concept, a concept that god created morality, god knows morality and all people will be judged by god against this morality?
The problem is that people can't know what this morality baseline is, people don't agree and we cannot simply ask the authority for the answers. Most people don't even agree on who the authority is and some people don't even think that there is an intelligent authority
[/quote]

Objective morality simply means that if you perfectly understand the complete picture, you would see something as being right or wrong. For instance, with regards to adultery, it weakens your bond with your mate via weakened trust, less commitment, and greater psychological difficulties. Objective morality doesn't *need* the bible/Church for you to see why it is right or wrong, but it is much easier to understand if it's viewed in light of those two things. Frequently you'll be able to understand what will happen in a situation in light of Church teaching, even if you don't understand why. Later on, you might be able to understand why it was inevitable that problems would come about from disobedience, but you really can't expect to always know everything. Before micro-biology, it was understood that eating unclean animals or engaging in adultery could cause health problems, but not why. Now we have the science that explains why some of God's laws are what they are. Others will probably not be revealed until far off into the future.

[CephaDrigan]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307441402' post='2250732']


On the other hand Atheists have no common moral teachings and yet the vast majority of Atheists are pro Euthanasia, pro sex education, pro contraceptives, [b]pro safe sexual practices[/b] and pro homosexuality. How is it that Atheists who are spread around the world, seperated by cultural barries with no common moral teachings are aligned on these things that the Catholics are adamantly apposed to? That the Catholics would deem as objective immorals.
[/quote]

What do you consider to be "safe"?

The only one that seems safe to me would be chastity.

[ParadiseFound]

[quote name='CephaDrigan' timestamp='1307475423' post='2250897']
What do you consider to be "safe"?

The only one that seems safe to me would be chastity.
[/quote]
I'm guessing he means using a condom.

(I know loads of people will come back at me with 'THAT'S NOT SAFE THEY'RE ONLY 99% EFFECTIVE BLAH BLAH BLAH'. Well, nothing is entirely safe)

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=18&l=38&f=s#x"][b]John 18:38[/b][/url]
Pilate saith to him: What is truth? And when he said this, he went out again to the Jews, and saith to them: I find no cause in him.[/quote]I am cautious of people who start claiming their ideas are "[i]objective[/i]" truth while others are not... because they said so. Even more so when the term becomes "[i]absolute[/i]" truth.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1307492925' post='2251077']
I am cautious of people who start claiming their ideas are "[i]objective[/i]" truth while others are not... because they said so. Even more so when the term becomes "[i]absolute[/i]" truth.
[/quote]

It's why I respect science as a tool. It's the best one for finding out about the objective world while at the same time never saying it has absolute truth.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307494765' post='2251083']
It's why I respect science as a tool. It's the best one for finding out about the objective world while at the same time never saying it has absolute truth.
[/quote]

You've told me you do believe in absolute truth and objective morality though. Don't forget that.

Edited June 8, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[kujo]

I think this thread is spiraling out of the original purpose.

"Is there objective truth?" Yes.

"Can we know it?" Sure.

"How?" :

The analogy about the inability to judge whether or not an object is stationary in space was provocative, and ultimately sheds light on one objective truth: we are not God. We do not possess all of the answers, and we never will. I recognize that such a response is anathema to atheists or agnostics or those of a scientific-bent, but it is what it is. God's got the answers, and we can seek them valiantly and still wind up empty-handed.

Yet, there's virtue in the search; whether or not you recognize it, there's grace in looking for these answers. God gave us the ability to think and reason and deduce and question so that we can come to know Him, not as senseless automatons but as beings acting out of a rational-choice. Not everyone gets to that point, but I believe that God looks kindly on His children's efforts, feeble and flawed though they may be. He sees you, trolling a Catholic message board and engaging in deep discussions. And whether or not you leave here convinced of His love, it'll still be there waiting for you.

Peace, my friend(s).

Edited June 8, 2011 by kujo