Morality In An Amoral World

[valley]

In a world like ours, how would you explain to an average person the need for morality and the fact that is really should not be how one feels, but what is right. I think that to truely understand the need, one must have the gift of faith, and the understanding of resposibility for actions.

In this feel good society, how do you explain that suffering is necessary and that happiness is not "feeling good", but living acording to your conscience and being true to God.

I ran across this dilemma while trying to argue that euthenasia is murder.

How best to attack this amorality?

[Circle_Master]

I would say to begin arguing you need to go to psychological and statistical studies. Unfortunately I have not the resources available for either.

In the feel good society, I often present suffering and happiness as thus:

In the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve took the fruit, they choose to trust their own wisdom above God's. This ended with their own wisdom directing their life, and it ends in death. God loves us, and wants what is best for us, and that is for us to be like Him. We can see many harmful effects of morality, and that is because we trust to our own wisdom instead of God's. Why not accept the joy and perfection God wishes for us, and trust His wisdom above our own.

It deals with why suffering is here, and also suggests the only true happiness can be with God. To be truly human is to seek God.

[traichuoi]

amoral is not immoral...they are two different words...be careful which you are using.

morality (you obviously know) deals with deciding whether something is right or wrong...it involves the will and the intellect (just as you said, it doesn't have anything to do with emotion...you can't depend on emotions because they're always up and down).

to understand morality there are two categories: morally right, morally wrong (or immoral). Amoral means issues that have nothing to do with morality (i.e., riding a bike).

so the issue of "euthanasia" is a moral act because it has to do with morality. although to choose it is a morally wrong act. make sense?

i think that's an important distinction because amorality doesn't have anything to do with virtue or vice. so does this person you argued with believe that it has nothing to do with morality (that it's an amoral situation) or do they believe that it is morally right?

[valley]

Oh I know what amoral means. Lacking of morals. That is the situation I am in.

The dilemma I am in is: How to explain to an amoral person (there are a lot of them. At this forum I am at I think that I am the only moral person there. Everyone else is a prduct of Secular Humanism) the fact that without morals what is there. How can you base laws on anything but morals - what is right or wrong.

How to tell them that there are absolutes that the Church teaches in regards to the value of human life and that society has the resposiblity to enact and enforce moral laws.

That is what I am wondering about.

It truely is a puzzlement. :blink:

[cmotherofpirl]

When a little kid gets mad at another kid they say "thats not fair". Where did they get this sense of what is right and what is wrong? God has implanted a natural law inside of everyone's heart. Try starting from there.

I have never met a person who didn't have some kind of code they work under, even if its just I always win, or the strongest are always right etc. Start with their personal code.

[traichuoi]

Valley,

alright, i see what you're saying...i just had to be clear on that. i would have to agree with Cmom. Everyone has "something" that they deem as being right so then anything against it would be wrong.

For instance, we believe in the preservation of Life. So anything going against that (abortion, euthanasia, suicide, contraception, etc.) is immoral. they must have something they passionately believe as morally right.

[valley]

Oh I did the Natural Law route. Still to no avail. I even had to correct him on the definition.

I used Syllagisms, asked him to tell me how it is not murder, and tried to find some common ground.

He is 24 and stubborn. All he can see is that the Church is in it for the $ and that it is to control the masses. He called it the big boogie man.

Then he typically started on the scandles, even the Reformation. He told me that by beleiving in Divine Providence (in regards to God knowing what is best for us, not us and if suffering a terminal illness is what we have to do, then we do it) was negating the idea of free will.

The only thing I really got from him is intense hatred for organized religion.

But I digress. I really am intrigued by how to explain the necessity for morals on a world who does not want any.

Edited December 29, 2003 by valley

[traichuoi]

i think it's so stupid when people talk about how they don't believe in "organized" religions. especially when they believe it's faulty due to dis-organization, meaning then that they think it should be more organized.

they think they are so educated and thus religion is a dumbing down of their intellect. how do i know? i used to think like that too...

sorry...just venting...

it's just plain stupid to say morality is non-existent. then, there should be no laws, i should be able to do whatever i want because it would be right to me. let's go kill my neighbor because i wanted to and i believe it's right...that's such illogical thinking...

praying for your friend...

[valley]

Thanks Traichuoi. I don't know if he would appreciate it, but we know how strong prayers are.

I was also accused of being illogical. And that my arguement was full of holes. I think that I was saying what they didn't want to hear and so of course being Catholic, that did it right there.

I don't get their illogic either. You need absolutes to be able to have a basis to ground your laws in. The whole idea of, like you said, no one can tell me right from wrong , it is for me to deside is so stupid.

To him Natutal Law was the darwinian survival of the fittest. I always have my dictionary next to me, so at least the definitions are "secular".

What is the best way to approach some one like him? I have pretty much said my peace and told him that "mercy killing" is inherantly wrong, because muder goes against every law, but because HE is desiding for HIMSELF he doesn't see it as wrong.

Then he made a comment about there being a lot of My God is better than Yours people on the board now. :rolleyes:

[PedroX]

You might try by pointing out that Darwinian elimination is a process left totally up to nature. It takes care of itself, because the weakest naturally die sooner, and the genes eventually correct themselves. However, euthanasia is not Darwinian in any way. It is circumventing nature. It is taking nature into our own hands. This is not even ethical egoism except maybe in cases like Terri Schiavo. But, I digress.

peace...

[traichuoi]

you should take him for a ride in your car...then drive at 140 mph in the snow on black ice with your lights off while your tires are bald...what? it's your decision right? it just might work...let me know if you try it.... :D

[valley]

Oh I like, I like, I like, but here in Alaska we don't really have black ice. Darn it.

Maybe I'll think of a new tactic tonight.

I'll let you know. :D

Love in Christ.

[cmotherofpirl]

Get a copy of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics. It has 20 arguments for the existance of God. Its by Kreeft and Tacelli. Excellent book to have on hand for this type of discussion.

[phatcatholic]

valley,

this article may help. every sentence is a possible response to your morally relativistic friend, so make sure you read it slowly.

---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/c...b/crj0135a.html

Confronting the Challenge of Ethical Relativism

by Douglas Groothuis

Part Two in a Three-Part Series on Liberation Theology, from the Witnessing Tips column of the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1991, page 7. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.

An indispensable pillar of Christian truth is the proposition that God is the lawgiver and moral governor of the universe. God is a personal and moral being, unlike the impersonal and amoral Force of New Age imagination. What is good, right, and virtuous is grounded in the triune God of the Bible. Jesus said, "Be holy as the Father in heaven is holy" (Matt. 5:48).

Because the all-knowing and eternal God is the source and standard of ethics, the moral law is universal, absolute, and objective; it is based on His unchanging, holy character. Although the application of unchanging moral principles may change throughout history, the principles themselves are perpetually binding and irrevocable. God isn't morally moody.

Given this eternal anchorage for ethics, sin must be seen as the transgression of God's law. John says that "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). David cries out to God and says, "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight" (Ps. 51:4). Sin is an offense against God, ourselves, and others. R. C. Sproul calls it "cosmic treason"; we rebel against our creator and "do our own thing."

In the modern Western world, ethical relativism poses a challenge to the biblical basis for ethics. Relativism affirms that moral right and wrong are only socially and individually determined. Ethics is split off from any objective moral order. Cultural norms of morality are relative to particular societies, individuals, and historical periods. What is "right for you" may not be "right for me." What is wrong today may not be wrong tomorrow. When the idea of moral law is held in disrespect, the notion of sin softens and then dissolves. If all is relative, absolute evil is impossible. If sin is nonsense, then the notion of a Savior from sin is absurd. There is nothing from which to be saved.

Because of its denial of abiding ethical standards and of sin against a holy God, relativism is a roadblock to effective evangelism -- besides undercutting values essential for a healthy society. But the key arguments for relativism are fatally flawed.

1. Relativists often argue that a society that honors free speech and freedom of religion must relinquish any notion of absolute truth or morality because this stifles the free exchange of ideas. Dogmatism and moralism are unwelcome in the pluralistic public square. Relativism is seen as required for a democracy of ideas and norms.

But this is flatly false. One may believe there are moral absolutes and also believe that the best way to reach ethical conclusions is through open discussion, dialogue, and debate. Freedom of religion and speech does not necessitate that there can be no objectively true religion or morality. A free society guarantees your right to be right -- and your right to be wrong! I can try to persuade you of the truth of my convictions without using coercion. In fact, I may take it as a moral absolute that I should not coerce those I believe to be absolutely wrong.

The relativist has abandoned the very concept of objective moral truth. It is all a matter of opinion because everything is relative. There is, therefore, nothing objective to argue about and no good reason to believe one thing over another. This is hardly what the American founders envisioned for a free society. It more resembles anarchism and nihilism (i.e., rejection of all values) than a "marketplace of ideas."

2. The sheer diversity of moral and religious ideas within and between societies is invoked as evidence for relativism. With so many options before us, who is to say what is true or false, right or wrong? We are left with relativism.

Here again, the facts do not deliver the conclusion. A diversity of ethical and religious beliefs hardly insures that they are all somehow true. A tribal culture may be scientifically wrong in thinking that the sun revolves around a flat earth. Why can't the same culture be ethically wrong for practicing head-hunting? If you say that abortion is right and I say it is wrong, how can we both be correct when we contradict each other? Ethical relativism eliminates the notion of a moral mistake. But this is just as fallacious as saying that every answer on a multiple-choice test is correct because there is a diversity of answers.

There may also be less diversity between cultures than is often thought. Every culture has taboos against stealing. Yet a desert culture may penalize the theft of water much more highly than would a tropical culture. The diversity of moral codes does not rule out a basic agreement on deeper ethical principles. In an appendix to his excellent book against relativism, The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis listed common moral principles spanning thousands of years from diverse religions and civilizations. As Paul tells us in Romans 1-2, God has endowed with a conscience all those created in His own image, however much we efface or neglect it.

Relativism also leads to absurd conclusions which undermine its credibility. If there is no true moral law that applies transculturally, then there is no basis for one culture to condemn actions in another. Surely any morally sane person must ethically condemn Nazi atrocities as evil and praise the heroes who resisted the Reich by saving Jews from extermination. But relativism cannot permit such judgments. The morality of everything is relative -- even genocide.

If we can reveal flaws in the case for relativism, we can further argue that the moral law is best understood as flowing from the moral lawgiver of the universe. God, as our Creator, knows what is best for us and calls us to obey Him for our own good and for His glory. Yet, as Paul said, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 6:23). The universal fact of guilt and shame testifies to that, whatever the cultural setting might be.

But the good news is that the Lawgiver is also the Redeemer of those who lament over their lawlessness and trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior. Those who cry out, "God, have mercy on me, a sinner" (Luke 18:13), can find mercy and eternal life. But the unrepentant relativist must face the absolute justice of a holy God who admits no interpretation other than His own. In the end everything is relative -- but it is relative to God's absolute standards, not ours.

--------------------------------------------------------------

for more articles on this subject, go here

i hope this helps...........pax christi,

phatcatholic

[valley]

Thank you everyone. This site is so wonderful to find. Real Catholics, who really practice the Faith and link to members of St. Blog's Parish (of which my brother is a member).

Truely a great gift and I thank you for being here.

Love in Christ,

Margaret