The Objective Morality Debate

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1307574028' post='2251445']
I'm curious as to what you mean by "intuitive knowledge." Do you mean something we all know or is it something you've learned?
[/quote]

I think a mixture of both, though how much of each is not as clear cut as I originally thought.

[stevil]

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.

What if god doesn't want people to be aligned in their understandings, what if the goal isn't to know the truth, but to simply learn how to get along with each other?

To converse, collaborate, cooporate and compromise. To tolerate each other, to support each other, to love and be compassionate and to take joy from the diversity of others.
There is so much to learn from people who are different, so much opportunity to expand on our ideas and our understanding by getting to know others and looking to them with respect and admiration. Not necessarily to focus on our differences but with an understanding that we are similar yet unique as well.

I think diversity is exciting and also is a great challenge to accept and to support.

I don't understand the position of a person thinking that the world is polarised as black and white, right and wrong, good and bad.

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307560027' post='2251360']
Love it when people want to talk on behalf of Atheists rather than asking an Atheist to clarify, their biggotry is always revealing and often humorous.
[/quote]
Glad to give you a laugh, bro.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307560211' post='2251361']
I would say that society needs to implement some rules around Euthanasia, best defined by doctors than myself.
Going by the golden rule "Treat others as you would like to be treated." If I were going to be in excrutiating pain for the rest of my shortened life, I would want to be put to sleep.
[/quote]
Having an MD doesn't give anyone the right to play God and decide when to kill another person.

People can and do heroically endure all kinds of excruciating pain, and still obtain good out of their lives. And how much pain is and isn't "excrutiating" is a subjective measure. Freedom from pain does not morally outweigh life itself.

Murder is wrong, period. You can't make exceptions based on arbitrary criteria.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1307559967' post='2251359']
Well, what would be the problem with that, if you don't mind me asking. It's something I've never quite understood, myself.
[/quote]
Seriously, are you Catholic?

"Thou shalt not kill" forbids all deliberate taking of innocent human life, no exceptions.

From the Catechism:
"2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

[quote]Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.[/quote]

[quote]Suicide

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. [b]Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.[/b][/quote]

I'd recommend reading the entire section [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm"]here[/url].

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307562087' post='2251376']
Don't you love it how they try to dehumanise a humanist?
[/quote]
Any so-called "humanism" which advocates killing innocent humans is unworthy of the name.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307643330' post='2251687']
Seriously, are you Catholic?

"Thou shalt not kill" forbids all deliberate taking of innocent human life, no exceptions.

From the Catechism:
"2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56





I'd recommend reading the entire section [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm"]here[/url].
[/quote]

There's that characteristic charity and pastoral tone I was talking abou before! Instead of simply posting those links, you had to attach the demeaning "Seriously, are you Catholic" comment. It's a good thing I don't have to look to you for spiritual guidance because I'd probably wind up being a gigantic tool. Ya know, cuz that's what Jesus would do...

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307642761' post='2251681']
Having an MD doesn't give anyone the right to play God and decide when to kill another person.
[/quote]
They wouldn't be the decider, they would assess the criteria and give the patient the option if the criteria is met. They would then administer the solution at request only.
Regardless what you have been told by your church, this is a very humane thing to do.
If I were in the situation, I would want the option. I don't know why non religious patients and non religious doctors need to follow your religious based rules.
Surley Catholics can teach Catholics not to take the option when offered rather than influencing law. This would be as successful as Catholics teaching Catholics not to have sex before marriage. Ultimately god gave people free will for a reason.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307643474' post='2251689']
Any so-called "humanism" which advocates killing innocent humans is unworthy of the name.
[/quote]

You make it sound as if the decision is being made by others rather than the person themselves. It's not the doctor that tells the patient that since they're terminally ill and will suffer till their last days that they should accept suicide based on doctors recommendations.

What right do people have to keep people from ending their own suffering? I agree with Stevil, I think people should be allowed to make such choices for themselves without others who have nothing to do with anything step in and selfishly force measures on them that keeps them in their suffering.

I think the religious black and white approach to this is selfish and cruel, disguised as compassion and caring.

[fides' Jack]

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

People are backwards and are through concupiscence are naturally inclined to not listen to the objective morality written on their hearts for those things that it is easier for them not to. Funny how throughout history, in all places in the world, those things are the exact same everywhere - Euthanasia (because I don't want to suffer, so let's give everyone the option not to, if they don't want to), contraceptives (because of course I want to have my cake and eat it, too - everyone always wanted that), homosexuality (well, some are deeply hurt or disturbed or perverted, or are at least struggling greatly). The other 2 you mentioned - sex education and safe sexual practices - anymore, those are the same thing. Sex education is telling kids how to use "safe sexual practices," which just encourages them to do so, thereby ignoring that simple truth in all of our hearts that sex is a very sacred thing, and really should not be practiced casually.

It's also interesting that all over the world, throughout history, in every culture I can think of, while people have been fighting to make these things available or "true" by popular opinion, there have always been others who have fought it. So really, according to your logic, either of them could be subjective truth. But for some things, either it's bad or it's not. And any dabbling in the gray areas in between is due to a lack of fortitude.

[Mr.Cat]

Living in a christian bible belt that claims to be very pro-life, I find it odd to see things like the Texas Advance Directives Act. Read into it, I think its hideous. Here if they decide you're not going to make it, they can pull the plug on you even against your explicit wishes and ability to pay.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[kujo]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1307648715' post='2251720']
...homosexuality (well, some are deeply hurt or disturbed or perverted, or are at least struggling greatly).[/quote]

So, your contention is that homosexuals are "deeply hurt...disturbed or perverted," correct? That's what you want to go on-record as believing?

[quote]The other 2 you mentioned - sex education and safe sexual practices - anymore, those are the same thing. Sex education is telling kids how to use "safe sexual practices," which just encourages them to do so, thereby ignoring that simple truth in all of our hearts that sex is a very sacred thing, and really should not be practiced casually.[/quote]

To me, it always come down to this: kids should not be having sex. Period. It's not wise, it's not right and it's dangerous (to their souls, their bodies and their minds); however, I would much rather them have "safe sex" (i.e.- using [i]some[/i] form of contraception) than "un-safe sex" (i.e.- unprotected sex). It would be best if they just didn't have sex at all, obviously. But a realistic person has to concede that you can talk about chastity and purity all day long, and there's no way that you're going to reach all of those kids. Let's say you reach 2 of them--that's a [b]huge[/b] victory; however, what happens to the other 8? Are we just supposed to send them away without knowledge of how to at least protect themselves in the event that they're going to ignore what we know to be right?

It's a messy situation, a catch-22.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1307721745' post='2252020']
So, your contention is that homosexuals are "deeply hurt...disturbed or perverted," correct? That's what you want to go on-record as believing?
[/quote]

Um - you removed the last part - "or at least struggling..."

Homosexuality is, at its core, perverted. It's taking something that was obviously intended for a purpose, and distorting it to something else - hence perversion.

So, what I want to go on record as believing, is that there is something wrong with homosexuals. I'm sure it's a little different for each one, but some sort of defect exists in every single one.

But don't take that the wrong way. We all have defects. I have some very serious ones. I pity homosexuals, because I can see that must be a very hard cross to bear. Sure, it's a defect, but it's not the worst one. Better to be inclined to sin in the direction of homosexuality than to be inclined not to believe in God. Atheists (of all sorts) are opposing God. Homosexuals (and liars and gossipers and adulterers) are merely struggling to be faithful to Him.

Edit: misquoted myself...

Edited June 10, 2011 by fides' Jack

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1307721745' post='2252020']
To me, it always come down to this: kids should not be having sex. Period. It's not wise, it's not right and it's dangerous (to their souls, their bodies and their minds); however, I would much rather them have "safe sex" (i.e.- using [i]some[/i] form of contraception) than "un-safe sex" (i.e.- unprotected sex). It would be best if they just didn't have sex at all, obviously. But a realistic person has to concede that you can talk about chastity and purity all day long, and there's no way that you're going to reach all of those kids. Let's say you reach 2 of them--that's a [b]huge[/b] victory; however, what happens to the other 8? Are we just supposed to send them away without knowledge of how to at least protect themselves in the event that they're going to ignore what we know to be right?

It's a messy situation, a catch-22.
[/quote]

You're incorrect here, also. Sex is ordered naturally toward procreation and uniting two people. When you take one of those things away - procreation, then you're making the sin of sex outside marriage even worse. It would be better for their SOULS if they didn't use contraception and they contracted AIDS or got pregnant.

I can't remember where in the Bible someone was punished for "spilling seed", but I'm pretty sure that act was outside marriage, and the punishment wasn't for the act, it was for "spilling seed". It makes you wonder just how important it is to make sure every sexual act is open to life, both inside and outside marriage.

[kujo]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1307730986' post='2252091']
You're incorrect here, also. Sex is ordered naturally toward procreation and uniting two people. When you take one of those things away - procreation, then you're making the sin of sex outside marriage even worse. It would be better for their SOULS if they didn't use contraception and they contracted AIDS or got pregnant.

I can't remember where in the Bible someone was punished for "spilling seed", but I'm pretty sure that act was outside marriage, and the punishment wasn't for the act, it was for "spilling seed". It makes you wonder just how important it is to make sure every sexual act is open to life, both inside and outside marriage.
[/quote]

Peace, brother. I'm quite well aware of the Church's teach on sexuality, and I absolutely agree with it; however, it's one of those round-hole square-peg sorta things. Is the goal to be "right" or is the goal to prevent the spread of disease and limit unplanned pregnancies (and, therefore, abortions)? It seems like a lot of people view this as a zero-sum game, whereas I don't. I want to stop abortions, and intuitively, fewer pregnancies = fewer abortions.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1307741946' post='2252179']
Peace, brother. I'm quite well aware of the Church's teach on sexuality, and I absolutely agree with it; however, it's one of those round-hole square-peg sorta things. Is the goal to be "right" or is the goal to prevent the spread of disease and limit unplanned pregnancies (and, therefore, abortions)? It seems like a lot of people view this as a zero-sum game, whereas I don't. I want to stop abortions, and intuitively, fewer pregnancies = fewer abortions.
[/quote]
The "goal" is to save souls, and that is what really matters.