Interesting idea. I know I am going to cop it from a number of people but that's all right. I am interested to hear people's thoughts. To elaborate a bit... without going into post modernism too much, if you do not believe in a God then how can there be any truth. What is to say that mass murder(as an extreme example) is wrong is the collective society deems that it is. Most of societal "morals"... well they're actually based on Church principles - but ignoring that... now a days convenience, practicality and "greater good" play the most important determinants in the law and the acceptance of a society's collective "morals".

Another thing... truth... do you believe in an absolute truth? Ok now I am getting into the complexities of post modernism.

I won't say what I think on any of these issues yet but I
Am interested in what others have to say.
Looking forward to discussing and debating this...
Grace

I don't think morals require God.

A simplistic summery

I think something is immoral if it is beneficial to one at anothers expense
Or taking advantage of another person because they are unable to resist or realize what is happening.

Morality is living your life as you please , as long as it has no negative effects on others.


Absolute truth , the phrase seems redundant.
Truth is black or white.
It is true. Or it isn't.

Slightly dead would be the same thing.

Is this a semantics quiz?

Interesting idea. I know I am going to cop it from a number of people but thats alright. I am interested to hear people's thoughts. To elaborate a bit...without going into post modernism too much, if you do not believe in a God then how can there be any truth. What is to say that mass murder(as an extreme example) is wrong is the collective society deems that it is. Most of societal "morals"...well they're actually based on Church principles - but ignoring that...now a days convenience, practicality and "greater good" play the most important determinants in the law and the acceptance of a society's collective "morals".

Another thing...truth...do you believe in an absolute truth? Ok now I am getting into the complexities of post modernism.

I won't say what I think on any of these issues yet but I
am interested in what others have to say.
Looking forward to discussing and debating this...

Grace

Hi pensive,

The answer to the first question is no. Morality doesn't require God. As to the worth of moral theories without God- well, that is a entirely different question. I think God is important to the question of morality, but that's just my opinion.

The best way to look at this is to put ethical theories under three classifications; naturalism, non naturalism and emotivism.

A theory is naturalistic if it says that moral judgments are true and false and that such judgments are reducible to the ideas contained within the sciences. For example, psychology.

A non naturalist theory holds that moral judgments are true for false, but they are not reducible to any natural science. God as a moral law giver is the best example of a non naturalistic ethical theory.

There is often confusion ( especially in this type of forum) between naturalism and emotivist theory. They are not the same. Emotivism holds that moral judgments are neither true nor false. Postmodernism is not about emotivism in ethics. Doing what ever 'feels right' at the time is not an naturalistic theory.

Most naturalistic theory make some type of claim to objectivity. Utilitarianism for example, say that moral judgments are a way of making a claim about they way people think but is not necessarily a subjectivist theory.

Regards

Tut

First, you are reversing things. Religion was created to provide explanations for the unexplainable. It was also created to provide backup as to why people should follow moral laws. So your whole premise falls apart there.

Most of societal morals are based on the experiences societies have had in dealing with the necessities of people co-existing within a society.

Disagree with the premise.

If your belief is to be considered valid, then those who believe in no God, would have no concept of moral values. Which is of course far from the truth.

Even in those areas without religion as we know them today, often God's such as the Air or Sun or Wind were used to merely explain why things happened. Often when things did not happen that way, the felt Gods had become mad.
But these gods did not relate any values of morals, stealing, killing, robbing.

Morals were developed from a need of society to interact in ways that provided for the primal needs of its members, safety and security

Hmm... interesting responses. Martinizing2 -you're commment on absolute truth. You state that truth is black or white. I beg to differ. In this discussion I believe that is it important to bear in mind that there are 2 forms of "truth" - subjective and absolute. A subjective truth is a "truth" that is relative - generally an opinion of sorts. A simple example "the day is hot" this may be true in one person's opinion but not in another. That "truth" is subjective. An absolute true is as you stated black or white. An example: The earth is round. That is an absolute despite the fact that for hundreds of years every living person believed otherwise.

So to the point of morals. This is what you said OK?
"I think something is immoral if it is beneficial to one at anothers expense
Or taking advantage of another person because they are unable to resist or realize what is happening.

Morality is living your life as you please , as long as it has no negative effects on others."

I very pragmatic and reasonable approach to life. However, on the idea of truth. You said that you think morals are determined by their affects on other people. The problem with that is that it is subjective. It is debatable and though you may fully believe it, and I aggree it is very logical, there are cultures which have different "morals". For truth to be absolute it cannot be subjective or dependent on society, environment etc. Hence is it possible to have absolute morals?

When I posed this questions(s)I did not have - still don't have - a concrete viewpoint on the issue, I am simply exploring the topic out of interest.

Ok here's another thought, IF (in bold) God does exist, then whether the majority of the world believe it or not it would be absolute - correct? Hypothetically? If not then as far as my thinking processes have gone I cannot see how there can be any absolutes - at least as far as morals go. And on that that line of thought then one view is no better than another.

Hey Tut,
Thanks for the reply. It sounds as though you have studied this area somwhat. On the whole naturalist, non-naturalist and emotivism - I haven't looked into them in great depth in the past so when I get a chance I will have a look at them in greater detail. I liked your distinction between being able to have morals without God but questioning their value. An interesting idea, one I hadn't thought of.

I will get back to you with some further thoughts once I have looked into the three ethical theories some more. Thanks - I like finding out new things that I can research into. Whether I agree with them or not it is interesting none the less.

To be continued... =)

I agree with the latter statement. But.. in that case do morals have credibility as they are subjective to culture and time?

Comments on this post
Pensive : I agree with the latter statement. But.. in that case do morals have credibility as they are subjective to culture and time?

Not really. Most morality is is pretty universal. The biggest change has been the application of a set of morals outside one's own culture. As the global community has become smaller morality has become more universal.

Hello P:

Let me ask you this. Is your religion the only thing standing in the way from you acting like an animal?

excon

Morals are those rules or principals used to judge whether an action is good or bad. Moral theology deals with right actions conforming to Divine Law and Natural Law resulting in judicial and virtuous order preserving the common good. There are morals dealing with positive law and primitive law (manmade laws) which, unlike Divine Law and Natural Law, can be suspended or dispensed with.

Consequently, when we are asked does a universal moral law require a moral law giver”, you must answer emphatically, yes. And the Creator is that Law giver. Moral precepts that can be suspended or done away with ultimately lead to anarchy – disorder; the absence of justice and virtues will eventually lead to men becoming base animals.


“Foolish therefore was the opinion of those who said that the corruptible lower world, or individual things, or that even human affairs, were not subject to the Divine government. These are represented as saying, "God hath abandoned the earth" (Ezekiel 9:9).” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, I, Q 103, 5

JoeT

Consequently, when we are asked does a universal moral law require a moral law giver”, you must answer emphatically, yes. And the Creator is that Law giver. Moral precepts that can be suspended or done away with ultimately lead to anarchy – disorder; the absence of justice and virtues will eventually lead to men becoming base animals.



JoeT

HI Joe,

Sorry to disagree with you on a particular point.

Yes, the Creator is a law giver and his laws are universal. But other ethical theories which don't require a law giver are also universal.

There are many examples of moral subjectivist theories which are universal. It is highly debatable as to the worth of such theories but they can make a claim to universality.

Regards

Tut

Hmm...interesting responses. Martinizing2 -you're commment on absolute truth. You state that truth is black or white. I beg to differ. In this discussion I believe that is it important to bear in mind that there are 2 forms of "truth" - subjective and absolute. A subjective truth is a "truth" that is relative - generally an opinion of sorts. A simple example "the day is hot" this may be true in one person's opinion but not in another. That "truth" is subjective. An absolute true is as you stated black or white. An example: The earth is round. That is an absolute despite the fact that for hundreds of years every living person believed otherwise.



Hi again Pensive,

This is where it can get a little bit tricky.

If,'the day is hot' is an expression of a moral opinion ( it's not, but just imagine it was) then it would be called a meta ethical subjectivist position.The reason being is that it is an EXPRESSION of morality. Perhaps it could expressed as, "Phew! It is hot today' ( still assuming days being hot can be expressed as a moral statement).

You are right when you say this is a subjectivist point of view. Someone else might say, 'Hoo-ra for hot days!'. Clearly these two views are in conflict. Obviously, one person likes hot days and the other person doesn't. It is impossible to reconcile these points of view they are simply an EXPRESSION of individual FEELINGS. There is no objectivity.

Things would change dramatically if someone said, 'Everyone should steal something when it is a hot day'. This is a ethical statement which makes some claim towards being an universal or absolute truth.

I think there is a need to be clear on this distinction before the discussion can move on. The point I made earlier about about subjectivism and ethics is important. Subjective ethical theories can be absolute truths. Kant's categorical imperative springs to mind.

The obvious question here is what is 'an absolute truth' The only answer I can come up with is that an absolute truth must be universal. That is, it must be true for all times and all places- past, present and future. It doesn't seem to matter where it originates.

I am not sure if this helps

Regards

Tut

HI Joe,

Sorry to disagree with you on a particular point.

Yes, the Creator is a law giver and his laws are universal. But other ethical theories which don't require a law giver are also universal.

There are many examples of moral subjectivist theories which are universal. It is highly debatable as to the worth of such theories but they can make a claim to universality.

Regards

Tut


This is the first time you’ve really piquéd my interest. How is it possible to have a universal ‘subjective’ law or moral? How would a prime or first truth be detrmined without basing it on reality but instead on mere perception? Whose perception and to what good would the moral be directed at? Wouldn’t this fit more with utilitarianism or hedonism?

JoeT

If, 'the day is hot' is an expression of a moral opinion (it's not, but just imagine it was) then it would be called a meta ethical subjectivist position. The reason being is that it is an EXPRESSION of morality. Perhaps it could be express as, "Phew! it is hot today' ( still assuming days being hot can be expressed as a moral statement).
Morals are the precepts or rules by which human voluntary acts are judged with regard to human duty and happiness as either good, bad or indifferent. “Phew! It is hot today”, is a statement of truth/or non-truth, it's subjective in nature only gives minimum insight into what temperature represents 'hot'. It is not related to an ACT so it can't be 'moral'. The statement,"Phew! It is hot today' is true only if it corresponds to reality and it fits the purpose of the statement – that is it expresses that the ambient temperature is hot. It doesn't tell us if Mr. Phew's actions are good or bad.



Things would change dramatically if someone said, 'Everyone should steal something when it is a hot day'. This is a ethical statement which makes some claim towards being an universal or absolute truth.
On which planet?


I think there is a need to be clear on this distinction before the discussion can move on. The point I made earlier about subjectivism and ethics is important. Subjective ethical theories can be absolute truths. Kant's categorical imperative springs to mind.

Oh, I should have guessed, the father of enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. It's like following an unlit candle into a blizzard at night – it doesn't cast any light, won't throw a shadow, nor does it give any warmth and you waste all your energy trying to light the damn thing up. Sure thing – Enlightenment! Add Locke and Hume and you've got the three atheist stooges.


I am not sure if this helps
It didn't help me! Gee Willikers, it's no wonder that Pensive is pensive.

JoeT

Ok... the "day is hot" part was not referring to morals but simply to the different forms of truth.I simply wanted to clarify that before asserting it into a discussion on morals.
I liked your definition for absolute truth by the way.

Hey Excon,
"Lemme ask you this. Is your religion the only thing standing in the way from you acting like an animal?"
In answer to your question... by no means. If I were an atheist then I would simply follow the codes and accepted "morals" that the society around me dictated were right.

In my question my first sentence was "morals require God". I was going to write "do morals require God" but decided that the former would involk a more response. Just to clarify by no means was it my intent to incinuate that 90%, or whatever the figure is, of the worlds popualation act like animals. I think it is fair to say that one of the main things which diffentiate us from animals is our ability to determine write and wrong i.e. morals.

I guess what I was/still am hung up on is the subjectivity of morals. I think almost everyone who has commented on this forum has agree that that morals are subjective - - they are determined by the society and time.

I don't really understand that.. I agree with it but see... for me something is either right or is isn't. Absolutism if you like. Subjectivity implys that in a sense something - lets use stealing as an example - can be both right AND wrong. In one culture it may be right, in another it may be considered wrong. How can it be both? Surely it must be either right OR wrong?

Can anyone enlighten me on my dilema?

I guess what I was/still am hung up on is the subjectivity of morals. I think almost everyone who has commented on this forum has agree that that morals are subjective - - they are determined by the society and time period.

Can anyone enlighten me on my dilema?Hello again, P:

I don't think you added correctly. Even if you did, there was ONE person here who told you that morals aren't subjective, and that MOST societies adopt similar ones. That would be ScottGem. Stealing is stealing, no matter what tribe you belong to. Murder is murder and hurting people is hurting people... EVERYBODY recognizes that stuff. It IS universal.

excon

Hello again, P:

I don't think you added correctly. Even if you did, there was ONE person here who told you that morals aren't subjective, and that MOST societies adopt similar ones. That would be ScottGem. Stealing is stealing, no matter what tribe you belong to. Murder is murder and hurting people is hurting people.... EVERYBODY recognizes that stuff. It IS universal.Good post.
Case in point: Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm)

This is the first time you’ve really peaked my interest. How is it possible to have a universal ‘subjective’ law or moral? How would a prime or first truth be detrmined without basing it on reality but instead on mere perception? Whose perception and to what good would the moral be directed at? Wouldn’t this fit more with utilitarianism or hedonism?

JoeT

Hi Joe,

Some people argue that hedonism is really rational egotism and therefore demonstrates self evidence of the highest order. There are of course different 'types' of utilitarian theories but roughly speaking we could say that if we combine hedonism with a duty to take note of the consequences then we end up with a type of utilitarian theory.

Even though the pursuit of happiness is a subjective phenomenon it can be argued that rational egotism is the universal element in some types of utilitarian theories.

In answer to,"whose perception?" I would say that universality in ethics means, that which is true for all individuals in a similar situation.

Naturally, like all ethical theories, they are subject too much debate.



This is the best answer I can come up with in a few lines.

P. S. Don't blame me, I don't make up the definitions as to what qualifies as universal.

Regards

Tut


Regards

Morals are the precepts or rules by which human voluntary acts are judged with regard to human duty and happiness as either good, bad or indifferent. “Phew! it is hot today”, is a statement of truth/or non-truth, it’s subjective in nature only gives minimum insight into what temperature represents ’hot’. It is not related to an ACT so it can’t be ‘moral’. The statement,"Phew! it is hot today' is true only if it corresponds to reality and it fits the purpose of the statement – that is it expresses that the ambient temperature is hot. It doesn’t tell us if Mr. Phew’s actions are good or bad.

JoeT

Hi again Joe,

Yes I realize this- I did say 'IMAGINE' this as a moral statement. I was trying to highlight the difference between EXPRESSING a moral fact as opposed to REPORTING a moral fact.

I'll admit that it was poorly done, but judging by the comment left by Pensive he understood what I was trying to get at.


Regards

Tut

Things would change dramatically if someone said, 'Everyone should steal something when it is a hot day'. This is a ethical statement which makes some claim towards being an universal or absolute truth.


Joe, in answer to,"which Planet?" I would say Earth because there is such a thing as moral realism. It is argued by some that ethical statements can have certain objective features which make them true or false. In some instances it is possible to show that such statements are universally true or universally false.

Regards

Tut

Oh, I should have guessed, the father of enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. It’s like following an unlit candle into a blizzard at night – it doesn’t cast any light, won’t throw a shadow, nor does it give any warmth and you waste all your energy trying to light the damn thing up. Sure thing – Enlightenment! Add Locke and Hume and you’ve got the three atheist stooges.


It didn’t help me! Gee Willikers, it’s no wonder that Pensive is pensive.

JoeT


The above doesn't seem to be an argument against Kant's categorical imperative. Are you saying that Kant's imperative is not universal?

Locke was not an atheist.

Hume and Locke are of a different philosophical tradition to Kant. Kant was a rationalist philosopher. Hume and Locke were empirical philosophers. There is an important difference here.

Regards

Tut

Interesting idea. I know I am going to cop it from a number of people but that's all right. I am interested to hear people's thoughts. To elaborate a bit... without going into post modernism too much, if you do not believe in a God then how can there be any truth.

1. Without God nothing would exist.
2. The existence of nothing is impossible. Since nothing can't exist.

Therefore the question is moot.


What is to say that mass murder(as an extreme example) is wrong is the collective society deems that it is.

You are assuming that there is no God. But since there is an existing society only God could have created it. And God put within this society, whether it be atheist or pagan, the natural law.

It is from this natural law, that most people who do not know the true God have received a conscience that they might get to know Him in the after life.

It is no surprise that this natural law which is written in the hearts of all men is almost identical to the law which is revealed by Scripture in the Commandments.


Most of societal "morals"... well they're actually based on Church principles -

By Church I assume you mean a Christian institution. And that is correct in western society.


but ignoring that... now a days convenience, practicality and "greater good" play the most important determinants in the law and the acceptance of a society's collective "morals".

I don't agree. In this country anyway, with a few exceptions.


Another thing... truth... do you believe in an absolute truth?

His name is God.


Ok now I am getting into the complexities of post modernism.

I won't say what I think on any of these issues yet but I
Am interested in what others have to say.
Looking forward to discussing and debating this...
Grace

Is your name Grace or are you wishing us grace?

Sincerely,

It is from this natural law, that most people who do not know the true God have received a conscience that they might get to know Him in the after life.

It is no surprise that this natural law which is written in the hearts of all men is almost identical to the law which is revealed by Scripture in the Commandments.




If it is possible to provide a short answer to the question,"Morals require a God. A moral law requires a moral law giver? The answer would probably be both yes and no.

Morality can be seen as being imposed from the outside by God. They take the form of commandments, "You will not kill", "You will not steal" These are categorical imperatives. In terms of ethics they are deontological which means they take into account how well a person adheres to these rules and duties. They are universal laws.

When we look at this from a subjectivist point of view and take into account ,the natural law being written in the hearts of all men, something interesting happens. We can now see it is possible for a individual to impose morality on himself and end up with exactly the same imperatives- as if they were imposed from the outside, but in fact being self imposed. That is imposed without ever being introduced or ever knowing God's Commandments.

It now becomes the case that given certain conditions every individual will come up with the same imperatives independently. If this is possible then it is an objective account of morality which is universal.

Two different accounts coming up with the same imperatives.

This is only one example of a possible moral realist theory. There are many other theories which take a different approach in attempting to prove the universality of moral statements.

Tut

Hey Excon,
"Hello again, P:

I don't think you added correctly. Even if you did, there was ONE person here who told you that morals aren't subjective, and that MOST societies adopt similar ones. That would be ScottGem. Stealing is stealing, no matter what tribe you belong to. Murder is murder and hurting people is hurting people.... EVERYBODY recognizes that stuff. It IS universal."

I disaggree. Morals are NOT universal. Some are perhaps and many would be in the majority of cultures but not always. You said stealing is stealing. I have seen proof that it is not universal before my very eyes growing up. I grew up in a West African society where my parents worked, and the culture there did not condemn stealing but rather the act of getting caught. Parents would hit their children if they were caught stealing not condemning them for the act itself but for the shame of being caught. It was not wrong to steal there. That is just one example... thus the problem remains.

Hey Tut,
"in some instances"... but not in all. Therefore morals are still not necessarily universal so how do they have any credibility? I know I am deviating from the original question but it was simply a means to open up discussion.
Pensive

Hmm... Tut that's really interesting but what conditions would it require? But, there is always the issue that "certain conditions" are not always there.

Hi Pensive you were asking about the conditions are required for a subjectivist theory to be universal?

I might have mislead you there. I wasn't actually talking about physical conditions. In the example I talked about I was leaning towards the initial conditions which will allow us to sum up human reason in terms of one imperative. In other words, it is a logical argument. Some people might argue that this is a false premise to begin with.

Your claim that stealing in some cultures is normal is not doubt correct. And can be explained in terms of meta ethical relativism. This basically means that moral judgments are not universal but relative to particular culture. Not all subjectivist theories want to be universal and this is one of them. In fact such a theory wants to argue that there is no universality when it comes to morality.

Other subjectivist theories want to claim they are universal, i.e the same for all peoples, at all times and all places. Hedonism could be one of them.
A hedonist might want to say that people pursuing their own self interest is something that all people do all of the time. Therefore, they are making a claim to the universality of the theory.

Regards

Tut

I disaggree. Morals are NOT universal. Some are perhaps and many would be in the majority of cultures but not always.Hello again, P:

Yes, if you took what I and ScottGem said as an ABSOLUTE, you'd be correct. In order to prove your point, you could have mentioned the showing of the female ankle by some societies, as being immoral... The world doesn't think so, though. And, because some obscure African tribe thinks stealing is cool, does NOT mean the WORLD accepts the practice. They DON'T.

I again say to you, that morals are, with few exceptions, universal.

excon

Thanks for the thoughts. Ok..playing the devil's advocate, the problem with your argument is that it asumes that God exists. If a person doesn't believe that, then it has no grounds. That's the fundamental problem. * Name is Grace =)

Whether a person believes that God exists or not has no bearing on the question. The fact is that God does exist whether one believes it or not. And every person, whether he believes in God or not was made by God with the natural law in their heart.

That is why most cultures all have virtually the same morals.

Whether a person believes that God exists or not has no bearing on the question. The fact is that God does exist whether one believes it or not. And every person, whether he believes in God or not was made by God with the natural law in their heart.That's where you are factually incorrect. Since the existence of a god cannot be proven then it is your belief. The correct answer as to why some morals are universal is explained in the first few posts in this thread.

Have a great day!

If it is possible to provide a short answer to the question,"Morals require a God. A moral law requires a moral law giver? The answer would probably be both yes and no.

The answer is simply yes.


Morality can be seen as being imposed from the outside by God. They take the form of commandments, "You will not kill", "You will not steal" These are categorical imperatives. In terms of ethics they are deontological which means they take into account how well a person adheres to these rules and duties. They are universal laws.

OK.


When we look at this from a subjectivist point of view and take into account ,the natural law being written in the hearts of all men, something interesting happens. We can now see it is possible for a individual to impose morality on himself and end up with exactly the same imperatives- as if they were imposed from the outside, but in fact being self imposed. That is imposed without ever being introduced or ever knowing God's Commandments.

Correct. The individual, not knowing of God's existence believes he is imposing on himself those laws. But in fact, since God wrote them in his heart, it is God who did it.

If he disregards them, he disobeys his conscience and therefore God who gave him that conscience. This is why even pagans and atheists have no excuse. Although they have never heard of the God's Commandments which were revealed in Scripture, they are still subject to the conscience which God placed in them to guide them to Him. Therefore, every man shall be judged by the same criteria.

Romans 2:14-16 (King James Version)

14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


It now becomes the case that given certain conditions every individual will come up with the same imperatives independently. If this is possible then it is an objective account of morality which is universal.

Two different accounts coming up with the same imperatives.

This is only one example of a possible moral realist theory. There are many other theories which take a different approach in attempting to prove the universality of moral statements.

That can only happen if there is One God who has placed those moral imperatives in the human heart.

Sincerely,

Although they have never heard of the God's Commandments which were revealed in Scripture, they are still subject to the conscience which God placed in them to guide them to Him. Therefore, every man shall be judged by the same criteria.

Romans 2:14-16 (King James Version)

14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


I couldn't agree more; which is the point of the entire epistle to the Romans. That Jews had Divine Laws and perverted them to their own subjective meaning for their own 'justification'. The gentiles had their Natural Laws which they followed – “For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves. “ Rom 2:14. And at times it seemed that natural laws were outshining subjective divine law, at least in so far as Paul perceived Jew and gentiles. This verse also says that there is an objective law, an objective Divine Law, above all whether it is recognized by man. As there is only one God, there can only be one Truth.



Even though the pursuit of happiness is a subjective phenomenon
Hedonism holds that good and happiness are through sensual gratification, what feels good is good. But, “happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue.” Ethic. I, 13 From which St. Thomas deduces that “man's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, which is an act of the intellect. (Summa, II, I, Q4.4).

Consequently, for perfect happiness the intellect needs to reach the very Essence of the First Cause. And thus it will have its perfection through union with God as with that object, in which alone man's happiness(Summa, II, I,Q4. 8)

A perfect beatitude, perfect happiness, complete well-being, will only be obtained in heaven. Happiness seeks a perfect good, which can only be found in the Perfect God. Thus, a perfect happiness is only found in an objective faith. St. Thomas continues,


Now it has been shown above that Happiness is a good surpassing created nature. Therefore it is impossible that it be bestowed through the action of any creature: but by God alone is man made happy, if we speak of perfect Happiness. If, however, we speak of imperfect happiness, the same is to be said of it as of the virtue, in whose act it consists. (Summa, II, I,Q5.6)

JoeT

Hedonism holds that good and happiness are through sensual gratification, what feels good is good. But, “happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue.” Ethic. i, 13 From which St. Thomas deduces that “man's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, which is an act of the intellect. (Summa, II, I, Q4.4).

Consequently, for perfect happiness the intellect needs to reach the very Essence of the First Cause. And thus it will have its perfection through union with God as with that object, in which alone man's happiness(Summa, II, I,Q4. 8)

A perfect beatitude, perfect happiness, complete well-being, will only be obtained in heaven. Happiness seeks a perfect good, which can only be found in the Perfect God. Thus, a perfect happiness is only found in an objective faith. St. Thomas continues,


Now it has been shown above that Happiness is a good surpassing created nature. Therefore it is impossible that it be bestowed through the action of any creature: but by God alone is man made happy, if we speak of perfect Happiness. If, however, we speak of imperfect happiness, the same is to be said of it as of the virtue, in whose act it consists. (Summa, II, I,Q5.6)

JoeT


Hi Joe,


This makes perfect sense to me.

This is why I was somewhat surprised when De Maria said in a previous post that virtue ethics was not part of Catholic belief.

Regards

Tut

That's where you are factually incorrect. Since the existence of a god cannot be proven then it is your belief.

That is a self contradicting statement. Since YOU don't believe that the existence of God can be proved, that means that YOU can't deny the factual nature of my statement. The very fact that you can't prove or disprove God's existence means that you don't know whether my statement is factual since my statement relies on the existence of God.

Capiche?


then it is your belief.

I believe in all kinds of facts. That doesn't invalidate them.


The correct answer as to why some morals are universal is explained in the first few posts in this thread.

Those are simple opinions. But again, since you can't prove the existence of God, you don't know whether they are correct.


Have a great day!

You too!

Hi Joe,


This makes perfect sense to me.

This is why I was somewhat surprised when De Maria said in a previous post that virtue ethics was not part of Catholic belief.

Regards

Tut

We were possibly talking past each other on that thread Tut. That happens quite a bit with poor, misunderstood, old me.

We were possibly talking past each other on that thread Tut. That happens quite a bit with poor, misunderstood, old me.

Hi De Maria,

No problem. I can relate to that.


Tut

Pensive - that is a very interesting question :) You are obviously a person of great thought and depth.

Reading through the posts, I can't help thinking that a topic like morality, so integral to our day to day lives, has become a little cerebral. For what it is worth, I would like to add my ten cents worth.

For me personally, morality needs to be two things: valid (true) and binding (authoritative).

The first requires a moral law. If there is no moral law, then all morality becomes either opinion or social convention. Either way it is subjective. If it is subjective, then I have no right to force my moral beliefs (i.e. murder is wrong) on others. This is a problem for the subjectivist.

Secondly, it must be binding. This is why a moral law requires a moral lawgiver. What is the point of the law if there are no policemen to enforce it? Any form of morality must be able to motivate people to choose good over evil.

Both of these, to my mind, seem to necessitate the existence of a God - although perhaps I haven't answered the question :)

Both of these, to my mind, seem to necessitate the existence of a God - although perhaps I haven't answered the question :)Hello h:

What about the cops? They uphold MORAL law.

excon

Hello h:

What about the cops? They uphold MORAL law.

excon

You are assuming the cops are upholding the law of God. However not all laws are moral as some laws contradict and disobey the law of God.

It is true however, that cops are supposed to uphold God's laws:
Romans 13:3-5 (King James Version)

3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

For me personally, morality needs to be two things: valid (true) and binding (authoritative).

The first requires a moral law. If there is no moral law, then all morality becomes either personal opinion or social convention. Either way it is subjective. If it is subjective, then I have no right to force my moral beliefs (i.e. murder is wrong) on others. This is a problem for the subjectivist.

Secondly, it must be binding. This is why a moral law requires a moral lawgiver. What is the point of the law if there are no policemen to enforce it? Any form of morality must be able to motivate people to choose good over evil.

Both of these, to my mind, seem to necessitate the existence of a God - although perhaps I haven't answered the question :)

Hi hopeufeelbetter,

Interesting first point you have raised in relation to subjectivism and ethics.

The main argument for subjectivism seems to based on the type of language we used when making moral judgments. These judgements are more than just statements or DESCRIPTIONS- they are also PRESCRIPTIONS. In other words, they are imperatives or commands to do something. As such they also seems to be expressions of opinion or values and as such it does not make sense to ask if they are true or false. They are simply commands.

If we take this line of reasoning then in the end all ethical theories are subjective. What God commands breaks down to a subjectivist explanation. Truth or falsity doesn't come into it. It is simply what God wants.

The second point is that morality should not be enforced by some outside agency. If we are coerced in doing something then it is not freely chosen. On this basis it can't be a moral decision.


Regards

Tut

I agree Tut. But what I am not talking about is coercion.

Let me illustrate. Suppose we constructed a theory of objective morality without God, hypothetically, some kind of neo-platonism. We have a set of values labelled 'good' and a set of values labelled 'evil'. What is to stop me from siding with 'evil' over the 'good' values. Especially, when it can be personally advantageous to sometimes do the wrong thing - i.e. steal.

Prescriptivism is equally flawed, in my mind, as descriptive meta-ethical theories, as there simply is no metaphysical warrant for universalizing these imperatives.

Commands from God, I would assert, are not ultimately subjective, because they are not simply arbitrary but stem from the fixed, and all-good nature of God (this I believe, is the best explanation for the origin of morality)

I agree Tut. But what I am not talking about is coercion.

Let me illustrate. Suppose we constructed a theory of objective morality without God, hypothetically, some kind of neo-platonism. We have a set of values labelled 'good' and a set of values labelled 'evil'. What is to stop me from siding with 'evil' over the 'good' values. Especially, when it can be personally advantageous to sometimes do the wrong thing - i.e. steal.

Prescriptivism is equally flawed, in my mind, as descriptive meta-ethical theories, as there simply is no metaphysical warrant for universalizing these imperatives.

Commands from God, I would assert, are not ultimately subjective, because they are not simply arbitrary but stem from the fixed, and all-good nature of God (this I believe, is the best explanation for the origin of morality)

Hi again, Hopufeelbetter,

In order to construct a hypothetical objective theory without God we need not turn to neo-Platonism. We can use what is termed the "Ideal Observer Theory"

This is a meta ethical theory. Let us imagine there is no God but instead replace him with a hypothetical ideal observer. Such a theory claims that ethical statements express propositions and such propositions are true. These propositions are true because they express an attitude by an ideal observer.The ideal observer being a person who as far as humanly possible is aware of all the facts pertaining to morality. In other words, this means the total of what humans know about ethical theory.

This theory states that ethical judgments are facts that a fully informed observer would make. There is nothing to stop you siding with evil except that the ideal observer would say to you 'You should not steal because if you 'weighed' everything up you would come to the conclusion that to steal is not advantageous for society and yourself".

Regards

Tut

Hey Hopeyoufeelbetter,
Your response was well thought out and logical. It was interesting that you made the point that morals must be binding. I was just discussing that very point with a friend of mine a few days ago =)

Tut brought up the point that "morality should not be enforced by some outside agency. If we are coerced in doing something then it is not freely chosen. On this basis it can't be a moral decision." All right, if a person did something - an action considered morally "good" - simply because they were coerced into doing it then I aggree that it would not be a "moral decision". However, I do think that it is necessary for moral enforcement within a society. It mentions in Romans that it is generally only by the law that an individual is able to recognise their "sin". However the law would have no crediblity or purpose were it not reinforced - hopeufeelbetter, you mentioned Police for this purpose.

Romans 3:20(NIV)"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

So though the coercion of the law - in this case I am making the assumption that the law aligns itself with the fixed morals of God - does not merit an individual righteousness or personal integrity, it is necessary.

In an ideal society perhaps you could argue that moral enforcement or laws were not necessary as Romans(NIV) 2:15 "the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them". In this ideal sinaro, if every person internally possessed the same moral law and adhered to it, then enforcement would not be necessary as each person would be already internally bound by it. But sadly this is not the case.

Anyway there are a few thoughts =)
May I ask why you chose the name 'hopeufeelbetter'?

Again I think my point about the binding nature of morality that I made has been misunderstood. I am not so much talking about whether it is enforced, but that there is a reason in place that would cause me to choose good over evil.

However, I fully agree with Pensive's rejoinder. Moral enforcement, the arbitration of justice seems to be a core component of any moral system.

Why did I choose the name hopeufeelbetter? Completely unrelated to the present discussion of morality, a friend of mine was not feeling too good not so long ago and I was hoping that it would cheer her up.

Before a child is introduced to a superior being, outside authority, spiritual guide, or any other label we want to put out there he/she only knows right or wrong by what a parent or other guardian teaches them. The morals of a child are learned from others and the environment around him/her - in my humble opinion of course.

With that being said, I personally do not believe that morals are dependent upon laws from God or any other higher being. I am personally not Christian or of any other faith. I do not believe in a higher being.

I do believe that life is subjective and everything is relative. Collectively we teach ourselves what we believe to be right and wrong. It's about perception of life and what we believe to reality. Is there truly any two people even of the same belief system that agree 100% on what is right or wrong... I don't believe so.

That was thoughtful =)

All right harmonybox... let me pose you this then - why are there children(very young ones at times) who oppose their parents beliefs and that perhaps of their society and peers? We see many examples of people with intense individual identities who stand up for what they believe even, paradoxically, at the expense of the relationships that they crave and at the risk of public rejection.

"Is there truly any two people even of the same belief system that agree 100% on what is right or wrong...I don't believe so." Well no there aren't. But that doesn't undermine a devine/absolute set of moral beliefs. Just because people debate an absolute does change its nature.

Hey,
This is irrelevant to our discussion. But before I continue it would be helpful to know a little more about the sight - as I am new to itand haven't figured out all the workings as of yet. Would anyone care to assist me? Two questions... how do you quote people and what is the reputation box? Does it have any purpose?

Alright harmonybox...let me pose you this then - why are there children(very young ones at times) who oppose their parents beliefs and that perhaps of their society and peers? We see many examples of people with intense individual identities who stand up for what they believe even, paradoxically, at the expense of the relationships that they crave and at the risk of public rejection.I'm not sure what the answer would prove since the situation you pose happens to children of believers and of non-believers.

Tut, the problem with the meta ethical theory is that though it entirly pragmatic - more widerly though, not just personally - it is still subjective. What would happen if 2 "fully informed" observers were to come to different conclusions?

Do you think it is possible, in fact, to have a fully informed observer besides God? If you cannot have an ideal observer how is anyone "qualified" if you like to make the judgement as to what is "advantageous" or moral?

Yes morality is "pretty universal" but not entirely. Check out Afghanistan for one example but there are plenty of others. So morals are still subjective and therefore still lack credibility. The problem remains.

I realise that but H. deemed that a child only gets his sense of wrong and right from his parents and society. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case.Besides a person can chose to reject truth or accept it -there is always a choice.

Hi Pensive,

Two very good questions you raise in relation to an ideal observer theory.

Even though the ideal observer theory claims to be objective, in may in fact be subjective ( as you suggest).

What happens if two fully informed observers come to different conclusions? Also, you ask Is it possible to have a fully informed observer besides God? How can an idea observer, or perhaps a committee of ideal observers that can make moral decisions

These are very good points and very good questions you raise. I will attempt to answer them in a wider context.

The ideal observer theory is very similar to the divine command theory. If one is subjective then the other is also subjective. If one is objective then both are objective. What we can predicate of one we can predicate of the other.

If you believe in God then you will probably go with the divine command theory. If you don't believe in God then will might choose the ideal observer theory.

The important point is that they are both deontological theories. That is, they stress the importance of duty and obligation as the best explanation of a moral person. By observing certain duties and rules the individual will flourish. It is easier to describe such theory as, examples of 'virtue ethics'.

Clearly two fully informed ideal observers may well come to different conclusions in relation to what constitutes a virtuous person. This would especially be true if the two ideal observers came from different cultural backgrounds.

Now it can be argued that the divine command theory doesn't have this problem because God doesn't come from a particular cultural background. This may well be the case with God but it doesn't apply to humans. What was considered virtuous at one time in history may no longer be seen to be such today. It is difficult to establish the nature of virtue in a pluralistic society, especially in relations to commands.


Regards

Tut

Hey,
This is irrelevant to our discussion. But before I continue it would be helpful to know a little more about the sight - as I am new to itand haven't figured out all the workings as of yet. Would anyone care to assist me?

Sure.


Two questions... how do you quote people

The easiest way is to press the "quote user" button at the bottom of the message to which you want to respond.

That will bring back one quote at the top of the page in your edit box.

If you want to break that quote into several quotes, look at the end of that quote. You will see a "/" followed by the word "quote" in brackets. It is called the endquote. Every quote has a beginquote command and an endquote command.

Look at the top of the quote that was automatically placed in there by your computer and you will see the begin quote command.

Copy those wherever you want to make shorter quotes.


and what is the reputation box? Does it have any purpose?

Just to say you approve or disapprove of a message. I think once someone accumulates enough reputation points, they become eligible to be named moderators or something. I've forgotten the exact rule.

Sincerely,

Alright harmonybox...let me pose you this then - why are there children(very young ones at times) who oppose their parents beliefs and that perhaps of their society and peers? We see many examples of people with intense individual identities who stand up for what they believe even, paradoxically, at the expense of the relationships that they crave and at the risk of public rejection.

"Is there truly any two people even of the same belief system that agree 100% on what is right or wrong...I don't believe so." Well no there aren't. But that doesn't undermine a devine/absolute set of moral beliefs. Just because people debate an absolute does change its nature.


To the first part, I really meant infants to early toddler ages. Any child prior to having developed physical or mental independence on the scale of social thought and reason. Children any older than that would have, of course, developed some sense of who they are and how they interrupt the world around them. Whether they defy family or other social norms (whatever that may be in their environment) would be an independent response that again is subjective and relative to the circumstances. (imho)

As for the second part, I never said I didn't believe in a divine or absolute force only that I didn't believe in a higher being. With that said, I believe that we are small parts of a collective and inseparable whole. In that case, in a subtle way, there would be a <b>sense</B> of an absolute set of moral beliefs, but can that same set be applied to the entire universe?

For those that believe in God (or any god for that matter) then I would guess it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion, and vice versa for those of us that may have alternative belief systems.

From a cultural stand point, would you agree that cultures that fall outside of Christian beliefs do not have the same morals as those of Christians? Where would they fall in the spectrum of an absolute set of morals? If there truly is an absolute at all.

Some would insist that only energy and how it's processed through various mediums is the 'Absolute' or God. That puts a whole new spin on everything and of course is an abrupt turn from the topic we are on. I will leave it at that so we can stay on topic.

Pensive - that is a very interesting question :) You are obviously a person of great thought and depth.

Reading through the posts, I can't help thinking that a topic like morality, so integral to our day to day lives, has become a little cerebral. For what it is worth, I would like to add my ten cents worth.

For me personally, morality needs to be two things: valid (true) and binding (authoritative).

The first requires a moral law. If there is no moral law, then all morality becomes either personal opinion or social convention. Either way it is subjective. If it is subjective, then I have no right to force my moral beliefs (i.e. murder is wrong) on others. This is a problem for the subjectivist.

Secondly, it must be binding. This is why a moral law requires a moral lawgiver. What is the point of the law if there are no policemen to enforce it? Any form of morality must be able to motivate people to choose good over evil.

Both of these, to my mind, seem to necessitate the existence of a God - although perhaps I haven't answered the question :)

For me, those are the reasons for the necessity of the Church.

In other words, those are the reasons I don't believe in Scripture alone.

For instance, the Commandments I consider all true. But God doesn't visibly move to enforce His Commandments. In the past, He left it with the authority of the Jews, beginning with Moses.

In the New Covenant, He gave that authority to the Church.

Ultimately, on the day of Judgement, God will judge all based upon His law.