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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

His name is God.

Quote:

---

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,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive Grace

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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?

Quote:

---

then it is your belief.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Have a great day!

---

You too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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 :)