What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

What do you mean? Can you give me an example that would show that I don't understand or don't know? Another possibility is that you don't understand the concept I am trying to explain. ;-)

You've explained your position a hundred times, and it's been explained to you a hundred times why what you're talking about isn't actually objective at all.  Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.  Bottom line: the concept you've "explained" so far is not objective morality; not even close.

For example:

"Theft is an objective immorality."

"Oh?  You can't think of any time theft can be moral?"

"Oh, well, it's ok if someone is hungry, as long as they don't take too much."

"But you said it was objective..."

"Well, it's still immoral, but that's ok because those people aren't culpable."

So, if people aren't culpable for some of their immoral acts, what's the point of having "objective" morals at all?  In other words, not only do they not exist, they can't exist.

Well first off, I am sorry, but this is not an accurate representation of what I said.  

What I said is, theft is an inherently immoral act. (Not subjective.)

What is subjective is the thief's culpability. (refer to my example of the insane man to see where I distinguish between an objective act and personal culpability)

Now, my mistake with the whole theft thing was when I failed to realize that the definition of theft laid out in the catechism is this:

"The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.

So, taking another person's resources in the face of urgent necessity (food, shelter, clothing) is not considered theft per the catechism. I should have made this distinction with my response to you when "theft" was on my list of inherently immoral acts.

---

"There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods."

Subjective morality!

Read carefully. :-)

What they are saying is that this is not considered theft. Theft is still inherently immoral.