My views on objective morality

[Catholic_Lady]

I like you Becca, and we've had friendly conversation in the past. But sometimes you come off seeming really pissed off and hostile towards me, seemingly out of nowhere. Not sure what to make of it, or what to make of you. Sometimes I feel like we're good, other times I feel like you hate me. And I don't like your accusation about me "avoiding" or "not being honest" about controversial topics. I've been 100% honest about everything I believe here regardless of how much fire I knew it would cause - abortion, homosexuality, contraception... you name it, I've talked about it. Sorry if my responses aren't up to your standards. This site is a fun thing for me more than anything else. I'm not going to stop my life for it. It's the weekend, my husband is sitting next to me and we've been chilling out and watching the Red Carpet all day. I tried to take the time to respond a little bit to some of your questions, as I am now while the Oscars are on. Being told I'm just basically blowing people off or being dishonest is not fun.

I think the point is that it's a sensitive and significant topic, and that posting off the hand and dismissive remarks doesn't really come across as caring much for a topic that you posted yourself. Some people take Theistic beliefs and culture seriously, and we need to have serious discussions especially when regarding something as significant as objective morality, which may or may not land people in serious harm if cemented and further propagated into first world culture. 

Objective morality is tricky, and it can be dangerous. Fair enough if you want to casually check in and out, but just bear in mind people take all of this very seriously, as it greatly impacts the world around us.

I did not realize that me believing that morality is objective was a particularly "sensitive" topic... at least not any more than the usual sensitivity of theism vs atheism. It's not like I was talking about abortion or something. 

And my response wasn't dismissive AT ALL. I would have responded the exact same way regardless of whether or not the TV was on, because it is my honest answer. It's my only answer. Only thing is I had to edit it a few times before getting the grammar/etc how I wanted.

[rexbeccarox]

Right. That's it. I'm "mad" because you were watching TV. No need to think any more deeply into it.

I like you Becca, and we've had friendly conversation in the past. But sometimes you come off seeming really pissed off and hostile towards me, seemingly out of nowhere.

Maybe it seems that way to you, but believe me, I'm not being hostile.

Not sure what to make of it, or what to make of you. Sometimes I feel like we're good, other times I feel like you hate me.

I don't "hate" you. I'm allowed to dislike things you say and express it without hating you.

And I don't like your accusation about me "avoiding" or "not being honest" about controversial topics.

Please quote me where I said you were being dishonest. I accused you of not being earnest in starting this thread. If you feel the need to edit a post five times because you're watching TV and not paying attention, there's probably a better time for you to answer a topic you seemingly take pretty seriously, is there not?

I've been 100% honest about everything I believe here regardless of how much fire I knew it would cause - abortion, homosexuality, contraception... you name it, I've talked about it. 

The Catholic Church has talked about it, and you've repeated it here. Why start an entire thread if all we have to do here is look up what it says in the catechism?

Sorry if my responses aren't up to your standards.

My standards are only to have an actual discussion.

This site is a fun thing for me more than anything else. I'm not going to stop my life for it.

Dude. YOU started the thread. No one's asking you to stop your life. I'm only asking that you do what you implied you would when you started a thread about your own beliefs: answer questions when you're actually involved with the forum; not when you're watching the Oscars. Again, this is a topic that, according to your own views, affects eternal life for everyone, right? Don't you think we deserve a little more attention for something so dire? That is my entire point.

It's the weekend, my husband is sitting next to me and we've been chilling out and watching the Red Carpet all day. I tried to take the time to respond a little bit to some of your questions, as I am now while the Oscars are on. Being told I'm just basically blowing people off or being dishonest is not fun.

Again, point to me where I said you were being dishonest.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I think the point is that it's a sensitive and significant topic, and that posting off the hand and dismissive remarks doesn't really come across as caring much for a topic that you posted yourself. Some people take Theistic beliefs and culture seriously, and we need to have serious discussions especially when regarding something as significant as objective morality, which may or may not land people in serious harm if cemented and further propagated into first world culture. 

Objective morality is tricky, and it can be dangerous. Fair enough if you want to casually check in and out, but just bear in mind people take all of this very seriously, as it greatly impacts the world around us.

I did not realize that me believing that morality is objective was a particularly "sensitive" topic... at least not any more than the usual sensitivity of theism vs atheism. It's not like I was talking about abortion or something. 

And my response wasn't dismissive AT ALL. I would have responded the exact same way regardless of whether or not the TV was on, because it is my honest answer. It's my only answer. Only thing is I had to edit it a few times before getting the grammar/etc how I wanted.

It's not that you believe it; it's that the church (not just the Catholic church) teaches that, since "objective morality" (whatever TF that is!) comes from God--their particular version of god, of course--then it logically follows that people who do not believe in YOUR god cannot have anything but subjective (inferior) morality. Many, if not most, who follow this line of argumentation go on to allege that we subjective moralists (a category from which they wrongfully exclude themselves, as we point out in return) have "no basis for moral judgments" against things like rape, murder, etc. 

In other words, even using the phrase "objective morality" is a dagger thrown right at our hearts, following the common prejudice that we cannot be moral actors (except by chance hitting upon a moral that is shared by the religion in question). Many, many, MANY people in the USA believe that atheists are immoral or at least amoral, and as a result they're more likely to vote for a gay Muslim for office than an atheist. If you like, I can cite the polls that say so, but I suspect you've seen them, having been here so long.

When you started a thread using that particular phrase, and then weren't engaging our replies (which are, granted, often angry... can you blame us?), it can seem like you've written us off, as so many do, after smacking us with that allegation. Please forgive us if we step over the line in our vehement self-defense. I'm sure if you caught me on the wrong day with that argument, I'd be as salty as Becca, in my replies.

[Catholic_Lady]

Enjoy your shows, C_L. We get worked up, sometimes, and the "objective morality" thing is a hotbutton for us because it's slung our way so often. You just have bad timing, with the Oscars coming on.

Here y'go.



(Even got it from a Christian website!)

Thanks Rocket.  

To be clear I did not mean this to be like "flinging" this at you, like in a "you're so awful and so wrong for not believing it" sort of way. I did not condemn anyone here for not believing in it. The issue of objective morality has come up a number of times in discussions I've had with people here, and when I saw that video I thought it explained it much better than I was ever able to with people here. And that's why I posted it. Of course, I knew some people would get pissed as they always do when I say something religious based. That's just inevitable, and I understand that. But being told I'm being dismissive because it's the weekend and I had to edit a post, is not something I was expecting.

[Mystic]

My gut reaction to the title of the video: "where do good and evil come from" was to ask "where are they now".  Point to some "good".  Better yet, show me some "evil".  All you can do is to point to a person who has done some heinous thing or show the heinous act itself.  

So what are good and evil?  Are these things acts or persons?  If good and evil are acts, are the good and evil anything beyond the acts?  Does it exist in itself in some potential state until it is called on by an act?  Does the evil bring the act about or is evil simply something we call a heinous act?

If evil exists as persons, is everything about an evil person evil?  Did the evil hijack the individual and use him like a host?  What is it you people say about distinguishing between the sin and the sinner?  Surely you don't think people themselves are the embodiment of evil then.

Yeah, before I can be arsed to worry about where good and evil come from, I need more information about what exactly we are looking for.  Show it to me so I know what we are looking for.

When we do an evil act, we will feel distressed about it. We will feel the need to redeem ourselves.

Today we are veiled from the true nature of our actions. The day when when the true nature of our actions is manifested to fullest degree, then we are no longer able to intend the good and perform in it the same way.

We might ask to return to this world and do good, and that we would be sincere to God, but then it would be too late.

The reality is we are somehow connected. We have fuzzy vision.  

If we want 20/20 vision, we ought to hone our spiritual senses. Try to implement our knowledge, purify ourselves, perform the good we know, help the poor with alms and other means, etc. 

We ought to put to practice what we know. And we ought to search for knowledge of what we don't know. Every time we see a beautiful example of a trait in someone, adopt it. Every time we notice an ugly trait in someone avoid it.

Actions turn to habits which turn to nature often. 


Today we are veiled from our true value, our true nature.

Every time we do an action, it plays a role in what we are, our value, our spiritual image in the unseen.

But we don't see it much like when we look up in the sky, and don't see the size of the star. We see it small. 

We see things from far vision. That is why we don't exalt good actions as they ought to be exalted neither do we fear and run away from evil actions as they ought to be feared.

When we have greater faith, then the eyes of our souls see more closer to the reality. 

The truth is though, when you believe someone inherits an action, this requires a metaphysical system.

Of course, the metaphysical system is complex, no doubt, just like our minds are, but we all witness it to a degree.

[Mystic]

OK thanks for your answer CL

I didn't understand it, but I appreciate it nonetheless. Words like "spiritual" don't mean anything to me. I don't understand how morality is anything other than a judgement. I really don't know what you actually think it is.

And thank you for your kind words I agree that psychopaths are problematic, and getting them to fit in with society is difficult. This is the one case in which I think religion has half a leg to stand on, but I still think there are better ways.

I'm sorry but I don't buy you don't understand it. I don't. I think you can tell there is a difference in a judgement of for example what clothes look better to wear and what action is more morally right. You can also "judge" what tastes better or not. Chocolate or vanilla. Pizza or Chicken. Etc... It doesn't matter which one in this respect. But morals do matter more specifically because they are of a certain spiritual nature. Albeit, some are not better decisions then the other, but will none the less give different spiritual hues often depending on which path of spiritually beauty we incline to ( I think you understand this perfectly as well).

[TheRocketSurgeon]

OK thanks for your answer CL

I didn't understand it, but I appreciate it nonetheless. Words like "spiritual" don't mean anything to me. I don't understand how morality is anything other than a judgement. I really don't know what you actually think it is.

And thank you for your kind words I agree that psychopaths are problematic, and getting them to fit in with society is difficult. This is the one case in which I think religion has half a leg to stand on, but I still think there are better ways.

I'm sorry but I don't buy you don't understand it. I don't. I think you can tell there is a difference in a judgement of for example what clothes look better to wear and what action is more morally right. You can also "judge" what tastes better or not. Chocolate or vanilla. Pizza or Chicken. Etc... It doesn't matter which one in this respect. But morals do matter more specifically because they are of a certain spiritual nature. Albeit, some are not better decisions then the other, but will none the less give different spiritual hues often depending on which path of spiritually beauty we incline to ( I think you understand this perfectly as well).

You can also "judge" what tastes better or not. Chocolate or vanilla. Pizza or Chicken. Etc... It doesn't matter which one in this respect. But vegetables do matter more specifically because they are of a certain spiritual nature. Albeit, some are not better foods then the other, but will none the less give different spiritual hues often depending on which path of spiritually beauty we incline to ( I think you understand this perfectly as well).

[Mystic]

If you can't tell the difference between judging which clothes look better and what is more morally right, then you're not human. But as you are human, you can tell the difference. Unless you can prove you are not human, I don't believe you can't tell that morals aren't simply judgement like the way we judge which food tastes better.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm hoping that my questions, earnest and respectful as they are, merit a reply at least as substantive as the attention given to the complaints here.

[Mystic]

How do I know what I don't know? If someone asks me a question, like "why doesn't God do ______", and I don't know why, then I know that I don't know. 

As for how do I know that what I believe is true, again, this is basically a "why are you Catholic" question. Not something that can ever be summed up in a forum post. The short answer is, given everything I have experienced/seen/learned in my life, the faith makes sense to me.

But how do you know that what you do believe is true, given the fact that you don't have a metric for it?

How do you know that what you think is free will is free will? How do you know that what you regard as moral behavior stems from your god? The short answer is that you don't know. You believe, you have faith, that it is; but you can't say that things like genocide aren't you god's will -- after all, he's ordered such things, if we're to believe the Bible.

If all you have to go on is faith, well then you're essentially saying that morality is subjective. Because at that point you've defined what you regard as moral, and then are saying "my god wouldn't do or order that". If your god is the author of morality, then the fact that he behaves in ways he tells us are immoral means that morality is subjective. If your god is not the author of morality, then it should be acknowledged that the acts attributed to him in your own scripture violate the moral code he is alleged to have passed down to us.

Your faith makes sense to you -- great. But the fact is that it doesn't make sense to the majority of the people in the world, and while you're here expounding it, you cannot explain why anyone else should believe as you do. How is that not, in its very essence, subjective? Can you justify your own morality in an objective manner without appealing to your own personal reasons for believing (which are entirely subjective, as you've just admitted)?

How is that not subjective morality?

Some things about God have been revealed to us, others have not. I believe the Church's teachings on faith and morals come from God, and those are the things we have a firm belief in. Those are the things about God that we believe have been revealed to us. The rest are unknown, and among those unknowns are some of the questions I always see here, such as "why doesn't God just personally tell us He's real" ...or something along those lines. With questions like that, all we can do is speculate and come up with theories. But at the end of the day, they are still unknown because they have not been revealed to us.

How do you know that what has been revealed is actually your god's mind, and not some human interpolation subject to the fancy, whim, and error that accompanies such an endeavor?

Is this the post you are referring to? I will assume it is.

But how do you know that what you do believe is true, given the fact that you don't have a metric for it?

The metric is divine light from light of God, eternal light mixed with light of time, the name of God, the concept is explained via allegory of the face of God in the Bible.

How do you know that what you think is free will is free will? 

Through direct experience of free-will of oneself, vision of the soul, and vision of God.

How do you know that what you regard as moral behavior stems from your god?

Through God's Name/light/face and the divine link between morality and God, he is the light of all light, the blessed one in the blessings through his name/face.

If all you have to go on is faith, well then you're essentially saying that morality is subjective. 

This depends on how you define faith.

But the fact is that it doesn't make sense to the majority of the people in the world, and while you're here expounding it, you cannot explain why anyone else should believe as you do. How is that not, in its very essence, subjective?

Most of the world believes in the supernatural spiritual nature of morality and most believe that it's ultimate origin is the Creator of the universe, the Great Spirit, God.

I don't know what you guys are referring to the Bible, so I won't get into it.