What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Homeless Nutter]

No one is expecting "perfection". Not f***ing kids is hardly much to ask.

But clearly it is much for some people whose psychological propensities render children sexually attractive.

Really? I find women sexually attractive. I'm still not calling myself "perfect" for not raping them.

[Catholic_Lady]

But those acts are still objectively immoral, no matter what that society thinks. Don't you want those societies to stop doing these things? If so, then you too are what you describe in your very lest sentence.

I only quoted this part because it stands out. Maybe we have a semantic problem here. From where I am standing this is entirely wrong. But that's not the point, since it's also an entirely different society that obviously didn't move very far withing the last 2000 years. So yes, I would want them to change things.

But 200 years ago, it was perfectly OK to do just that in certain parts of the US and of Europe too. We have moved on. My point is and always was, that we have learned from past mistakes. We had the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment to teach us, we had bloody wars and revolutions that moved things along. So we as societies changed and also our perception of what is right or wrong.

I always keep arguing that the bible doesn't offer an objective morality. What it does is open a window into the past. It tells us, how people thought at a specific time and region. What they perceived as good and evil. That, if you don't believe that book to be the word of god, is the ultimate truth: There is no objective morality to be found in that book. Only the values of the people writing it down.

I would also argue that there's no objective morality to be found in our societies. In another 2000 years, things will look very differently again. And as much as I am convinced to be a pretty decent everyday life person, my views may be ancient history then.

So before I delve deeper into this discussion with you, I just want to clarify something:

You think time is a reason/excuse/whatever for morality to be different... but place is not. Is that correct?

[Ravenshire]

Actually, no; what we've objected to is that priests themselves claim to have the ultimate moral authority. I would venture a guess that no atheists think that priests actually possess that.

Have you ever spoken to a Catholic priest who made that claim for himself, becca?

I would venture a guess that no PRIESTS think that priests actually possess ultimate moral authority.

Randy, you have stated that christers are "called to a higher standard." That implies a moral high ground whether you intend it too or not.

[Randy Carson]

Agreed. The actions of a few have tainted all...in the minds of those who are less discerning.

You're one of those "few" tainting things, Randy.  Let that sink in.

[Randy Carson]

You're one of those "few" tainting things, Randy.  Let that sink in.

Randy molested kids?

Dammit...now I have to move again. Thanks for nothing, CL.

[Catholic_Lady]

There are 2 things at play here:

1. Moral objectivity

2. Personal culpability

An act may be objectively immoral as the act in and of itself. But the person's culpability for commiting that act, is subjective.

For example, an insane person can go into psychotics and commit mass murder. Yes, the ACT they have committed is an objectively immoral act.

But considering the person's state of mind, their culpability is lessened. That person's culpability is less than that of a a person who committed the same act but did so fully conscientiously. The insane person is held at a lower standard and should thus receive less severe punishment, if any at all.  

That is moral relativity.

No, it is not. The distinction between objective morality and personal culpability is something the Church teaches, and we definitely don't believe in moral relativity. You can say we believe in "culpable relativity" if you must, but the objective morality of actions are written in stone and are unchanging.

---

Randy molested kids?

Randy gave financial support to the Church even after he discovered they were sheltering molesters, and even as they fought a rearguard legal action to seal their records about the molesters.

He supported them materially.

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

[abaris]

You think time is a reason/excuse/whatever for morality to be different... but place is not. Is that correct?

It's all about knowledge and examples being available. The ancient cultures didn't know any better. Going by today's standards, I would be hard pressed to find any excuse to still regard people as property.

[Catholic_Lady]

You think time is a reason/excuse/whatever for morality to be different... but place is not. Is that correct?

It's all about knowledge and examples being available. The ancient cultures didn't know any better. Going by today's standards, I would be hard pressed to find any excuse to still regard people as property.

"...didn't know any better."

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

[abaris]

^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.

[Randy Carson]

Have you ever spoken to a Catholic priest who made that claim for himself, becca?

I would venture a guess that no PRIESTS think that priests actually possess ultimate moral authority.

Randy, you have stated that christers are "called to a higher standard." That implies a moral high ground whether you intend it too or not.

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