My views on objective morality

[Catholic_Lady]

To clarify, I don't believe contraception or fornication are objectively immoral. That is, immoral all the time without exceptions, no matter who, what, where, when, how... etc. Neither do I think those things should be illegal, of course. I think it is immoral for certain people to do those things in certain situations, but I don't think it's universally, objectively immoral.... such as things like murder and rape. Which are always immoral even if the people/culture doing those things don't believe they are.

Who would "certain people" be? I'm guessing they aren't good Catholics.

Well, that's up for God's judgement. But I'd say a practicing Catholic who knows and understands the Church's teaching on sexuality has much more of a duty to follow those moral standards than other people.

[Catholic_Lady]

I totally agree with you on the above. I just think you were assigning thoughts and opinions to C_L that she hasn't actually stated or that she's fully denied, either in this thread or in others. You can lump all Catholics in together if you really want, but their beliefs aren't all exactly the same, like whether Genesis is literal or not. I'm not sure, but I think I remember C_L saying she wouldn't vote against bodily autonomy, but we'd have to ask her to make sure.






(Please don't call me "Your Highness")

Now (and once again) it's you who are straw-manning me. I did not say CL would vote politically against bodily autonomy, but it's a fact that she has stated she believes abortion is wrong. It's also a fact (just ask her) that she has stated she accepts, without cherry-picking, the teachings of the Vatican, of which it can be presumed collects her tithe money. This may not be direct support of anti-abortion laws, but it is certainly a manner of support for every evil thing which bad Catholic political action organizations and bad priests, bishops and cardinals do.

What do you mean by bodily autonomy? If we're just referring to abortion, then yes, I would vote against it for all cases except extreme circumstances where the mom would not survive (for which case the decision should be up to the doctor and the mom). This is because I think a human fetuses' life should be protected under the law just like everyone else's. I see it as going beyond bodily autonomy because you're hurting someone else.   

If by bodily autonomy you mean contraception and having sex with whatever adult you want, then no. I would not vote for either of those things to be illegal.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I believe this whole thread comes down to people conflating their sense of morality with the objective judgement which can be made on the social vs. anti-social, or whether something you do qualifies or disqualifies you for natural selection. The difference comes out when people do something which is harmful (e.g., when they sacrificed their babies to Moloch), believing it to be moral.

[Catholic_Lady]

Thanks

In what way does a higher power change the situation? Are you deferring to his opinion?

Well... I believe He is the law maker of moral laws, if you will. So it's not just "His opinion" when He was the one who invented morality in the first place, and thus has the authority to say what it is and what it isn't.

[robvalue]

OK thanks

How is that different from a dictator who says "might equals right"? What if I don't agree with him?

[Catholic_Lady]

OK thanks

How is that different from a dictator who says "might equals right"? What if I don't agree with him?

I'd say a dictator is merely another human being, no different from yourself as a human being. He didn't create the universe. He isn't the ultimate supreme being of everything that exists. He didn't, Himself, create moral laws and design how they work and what they are.

[robvalue]

OK. Thanks for answering

[robvalue]

In what way is it a law though? I can ignore it, and nothing happens except what other humans do to me; which would happen anyway.

Laws are usually either rules that you get punished for breaking, or else they are "the way things work". I don't see how either of those applies. It only works that way in a circular fashion, if objective morality and his opinion are one and the same. If no reason is given for why his opinion is that way, why should I care about it?

As it happens I agree with some of the things commonly suggested as being "objectively moral/immoral", but not all. Does this mean I'm wrong if I disagree, and if so, what does it matter?

[Angrboda]

OK thanks

How is that different from a dictator who says "might equals right"? What if I don't agree with him?

I'd say a dictator is merely another human being, no different from yourself as a human being. He didn't create the universe. He isn't the ultimate supreme being of everything that exists. He didn't, Himself, create moral laws and design how they work and what they are.

Does Him being the creator of the universe make His opinion any less subjective? What you seem to be saying here is that so long as you are by far the biggest fish in the pond, that imbues your moral opinions with objectivity. How does that make sense? What does His 'authority' have to do with whether or not they are, a) merely His opinions or b) objective matters of fact?

[robvalue]

Well yes, of course. Good point, I forgot

His opinion is entirely subjective; unless he isn't free to form his own opinion, and it was forced on him somehow. And as I said, I don't much care about opinions that aren't backed up by reason and evidence, no matter whose they are.

Also, can't his opinions change? For all his power, he ends up tripping himself up a lot over these things.