What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

I give money to the Church too, I guess that means I am guilty of materially supporting child molesters...

Don't sweat it.

Parkers doesn't withhold any portion of the income taxes he is required to pay each year.

Consequently, he has blood on his hands for all the drone strikes that have killed innocent children.

[Catholic_Lady]

^Are you meaning to imply that they were wrong???

If you're asking me as a 21st century person, the answer is of course they were wrong.

So if you are talking about a group of people who thought burning rape victims and enslaving humans was moral, and you say that they were wrong for thinking it's moral, you are then saying that those things are objectively immoral, correct?

[abaris]

Sure. I just disagree that deacons, priests and bishops claim to possess that ground themselves.

They're the ones handing out the marching orders for their flocks. So yes, for Catholics they hold the higher ground. Which becomes especially clear in rural communities where the priest is still the highest authority available. I don't think that's that different in America.

[abaris]

So if you are talking about a group of people who thought burning rape victims and enslaving people was moral, and you say that they were wrong for thinking it's moral, you are then agreeing that those things are objectively immoral, correct?

No, I'm arguing for moral relativity. I'm appalled by these actions, but if I had lived in their time and their region I most certainly would have been OK with it. Everyone is a result of their upbringing. I'm an individual being brought up in a Western society. And I'm taking it from there.

[Catholic_Lady]

So if you are talking about a group of people who thought burning rape victims and enslaving people was moral, and you say that they were wrong for thinking it's moral, you are then agreeing that those things are objectively immoral, correct?

No, I'm arguing for moral relativity. I'm appalled by these actions, but if I had lived in their time and their region I most certainly would have been OK with it. Everyone is a result of their upbringing.

I probably would have been ok with it too. But that's not the point.

You said they didn't know any better and they are wrong, for consideirng these things to be moral. This suggests that you believe in a right way. A right morality.

This is exactly what I mean by objective morality. It means things like enslavement and burning rape victims are immoral acts, period. And if anyone thinks they are moral, those people are "wrong", and they "don't know any better." Just like you said.

[abaris]

You said they didn't know any better and they are wrong, for consideirng these things to be moral. This suggests that you believe in a right way. A right morality.

But that's not objective, see. It's how you were brought up. It's how our societies work. Ultimately it's how we perceive good and evil. The fact that I view certain actions as wrong, doesn't make it objective. On the contratry.

[Randy Carson]

Sure. I just disagree that deacons, priests and bishops claim to possess that ground themselves.

They're the ones handing out the marching orders for their flocks. So yes, for Catholics they hold the higher ground. Which becomes especially clear in rural communities where the priest is still the highest authority available. I don't think that's that different in America.

Oh. Then, I can't wait to go to mass tomorrow to see what Father has planned for me next.

[Catholic_Lady]

You said they didn't know any better and they are wrong, for consideirng these things to be moral. This suggests that you believe in a right way. A right morality.

But that's not objective, see. It's how you were brought up. It's how our societies work. Ultimately it's how we perceive good and evil. The fact that I view certain actions as wrong, doesn't make it objective. On the contratry.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and forgive me if I am. But it feels like at this point you are being dishonest to our discussion. You may need to clarify.

Let's do a rundown of how the last few posts between you and I have played out.

1.

I give you 2 examples of acts that I believe are objectively immoral, but that some societies (past and present) consider to be moral.
These acts are enslaving humans and burning rape victims.

2.

You refer to these past societies as "not knowing any better" in regards to the morality of these 2 acts.
You also say their beliefs on the morality of these 2 acts were "mistakes."
Finally, you say that these societies are "wrong" to think these acts are moral.

So, phrases you used to describe societies who consider these 2 acts moral, for thinking these 2 acts are moral:

a. "They did not know any better"

b. "We have since learned from these past mistakes"

c. "They were wrong"

Saying that they did not know any better suggests there's a better way. Saying it was a mistake suggests that is was not correct. Saying they were wrong, suggests there is a right.

This is exactly what objective morality means. It means there are certain acts that simply are immoral. You said so yourself:

"the people who think this is moral are wrong."
"The people who think this is moral don't know any better."
"The people who think this is moral made a mistake."

Those were all your words in regards to the fact that these societies thought/think enslavement of humans and burning rape victims is moral.

^You say all that, but then when confronted with your own words, you again go back to saying it's all relative to the society and that there is no real moral/immoral apart from what society deems fit.

So, if enslaving humans and burning rape victims is immoral only to our society and not written in stone anywhere, then why did you say the people who thought it was moral were wrong? Why did you say the people who thought it was moral didn't know any better? Why did you say the people who thought it was moral were making a mistake?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Catholic Lady, you need to look up moral relativity before we can go any further. You clearly don't understand what it is, as shown by deploying semantics in defense of your conception of objective morality.

I give money to the Church too, I guess that means I am guilty of materially supporting child molesters...

Don't sweat it.

Parkers doesn't withhold any portion of the income taxes he is required to pay each year.

Consequently, he has blood on his hands for all the drone strikes that have killed innocent children.

Yes, because taxes backed by the threat of jail are perfectly comparable to church donations.

Forgive me while I chuckle at your limp argumentation.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Because animals, in most countries, are still considered items by law. Which speaks louder about our disrespect than it does about our superiority.

So you think an animal who kills her babies should spend time in prison in the same way that a human who killed her own babies should? (assuming she was not insane)

According to the Bible it's not wrong for parents to kill their children.  As a matter of fact it's demanded that they kill their children in certain situations.  And when all else failed they could simply claim that the kid was a witch.  So it's all good.