[TUT317]

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

[TUT317]

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

[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

[TUT317]

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

[De Maria]

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,

[TUT317]

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

[Pensive]

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.

[Pensive]

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

[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.

[TUT317]

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

[excon]

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

[De Maria]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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!

[De Maria]

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,

[JoeT777]

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

[TUT317]

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

[De Maria]

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!

[De Maria]

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.

[TUT317]

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

[hopeufeelbetter]

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 :)