Right and Wrong

Quote: FrGamble

sigh.

We learn many things from our parents, family, and society. However, right and wrong go much deeper than what our parents or culture teach us. Simple experiment - if a society, culture, or a family taught someone that lying was good and that cheating was to be encouraged would they be right? Of course not, there are objective moral truths that transcend your upbringing and mine. We might have had bad teachers and lived in a corrupt society and therefore may be blinded by how wrong it is to treat people different because of the color of their skin, but you would have to agree that racism is wrong no matter what we subjectively feel or have been brought up to think. As strong as the laws of nature that order our universe, is as strong as the moral laws are i.e. killing an innocent person is wrong no matter what planet you live on.

This at least necessitates something greater than us which has established these natural and moral laws and at the same time gives us some insight into who or what this entity is.

If racism is wrong, then why were slaves accepted in biblical times and for 1800+ years thereafter? Why are there no female priests? Sexism is acceptable I suppose. Christ chose 12 men, so the Church also must only choose men to fulfill tradition. If the bible happened to choose the nationality of these twelve, would it be fair to say that all future priests be of those nationalities, to fulfill tradition?

Right or wrong is environmental. We kill innocents in the name of war every day. Children in Africa are dying of poverty and malnourishment all of the time; some are even Christians. Our reasoning is just that. We reason right and wrongs based on the moral ethos of the time.

Quote: FrGamble

so that you are left with a solid, pure, and strong faith.

That applies to any religion, any dogma. It's
not unique to Christians.

Quote: boymimbo

Sigh.

I desire more in my life because my parents taught me to.
We learn rights and wrongs through family and society.
Some of us don't strive to help others. These are learned behaviors, but sociologically, it is good for groups to behave in certain ways to advance the cause of the group.
Some of us don't celebrate thoe who sacrifice for the common good. These are learned behaviors. See the previous sentence.
We don't know there is something more than meets the eye. That is left to faith.
We are not fulfilled with material things because we are born to procreate and therefore we are hardwired to love and have emotional needs fulfilled that materials cannot sometimes provide.
Not all of us view inherent weaknesses in ourselves and we can argue that this is driven by society as well. For example, girls are taught at a young age of what the definition of beauty is and they are continually beat with these images that they feel a false weakness based on inadequacies on the way they look. Men feel the same inadequacies because they don't earn as much as their peers. This is not necessarily God-riven.

None of what you say necessitates the existence of God.

This is great stuff, boymimbo, especially from a Christian. I really appreciate the distinctions you're making here.

Quote: boymimbo

If racism is wrong, then why were slaves accepted in biblical times and for 1800+ years thereafter?

In ancient times, slavery was seldom based on race. Typically prisoners of war and other war captives (camp followers, citizens from sacked cities, sometimes refugees), were impressed into slavery. To some degree also destitute citizens, especially those with debts, could sell themselves or their family into slavery or indentured service (the latter carried a term of service).

Still, the Church, in its various incarnations and denominations, condoned all this for centuries.

Have to add my own congratz to boymimbo's post. Just great stuff.

You do make me question things, FrG. You do make me constantly analyze what I believe, and therefore these threads have much value. But I suppose I'm still looking for that big "A-ha!" moment.

I don't like the argument that "some things are just known as wrong". As I've said before, I think the definition of right and wrong changes based on external influences. We often talk of times when slavery was accepted. Some would even argue it was needed. Has that always been wrong? I know I've offered before how in certain cultures people's lives were purposely terminated. Maybe it's the Spartans killing off weak children, maybe it was the Inuits sending the elders off on ice floes. Either way, it happened and was the accepted practice of that society. Is that wrong now? Most would generally agree that it is. Was it wrong then? I feel no. For them, in their culture at their time, it was a necessary act of survival. It was the right thing to do. Killing kids and old people was RIGHT.

We bring up lying. We know it's wrong, we all feel it. But is it, really? What if you're a P.O.W. being interrogated for the location of your troop? You may lie and tell them false information to save your own life, you may lie and tell them an incorrect location to save your buddys' lives. Surely we all agree this is RIGHT. What if we lie not to save life, but to save serious injury? Again, that's probably ok. What if we lie just to save discomfort? We lie to a hotel and get a free room so we don't have to sleep in a tent. That's probably not OK, right? But what if we tell the same lie so our child doesn't have to sleep out in the cold? Isn't that more right, or at least less wrong?

Not long ago, and I'm sure terapined could confirm, copying and distributing other people's music was highly desired. The mark of a good hippie had less to do with quality of tie-die and more to do with quantity of mixed tapes. And those tapes would get pushed and shared, opening up new fans and getting the word out, advertising for groups that kept it out of corporate and into the hands of the fans. It was viewed as "great". Now, we call it "piracy" and it is a "terrible offense" with fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to 5 years. Who isn't aware of at least one case where some soccer mom now owes $1.Xmm in fines for downloading Disney songs?

Right and wrong change.

Face, welcome to the wonderful world of moral theology or ethics.

These good examples and questions you pose exist precisely because right and wrong do not change. In none of the cases are we saying lets just change that silly old rule that we shouldn't kill innocent people. We know that we simply cannot. However, there are times when we recognize in extraordinary circumstances decisions need to be made that can lead to the death of the innocent. We twist and turn ourselves to try to find ways where we feel less culpable or even justified. In war we avoid civilian centers if possible. We put our sick and elderly we can't take care of on an ice flow so we can ease our conscience as they float away. We do not take any of this lightly, we cannot because again we cannot change our objective moral law.

We look at cases in where a hierarchy of values comes into conflict such as weighing the life of our friends or children versus telling a lie. Again at no time do we say lying is great and I think everybody should do it. We wrestle with this difficult moral decision. Some like St. Thomas Aquinas get creative in defining lying to be more like purposefully misleading or withholding something from someone who has a right to know. The prison guards do not have a right to know the location of our buddies and as far as I'm concerned my sister-in-law doesn't have a right to know that green is not her color.

So don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, that would be a mortal sin! Just because the objective moral laws that human beings are subjected to cause us many challenges and force us to wrestle with our actions doesn't mean we can freely decide as individuals or as a society to change them to our liking. In fact avoiding the awful situations you present in your examples of difficult moral questions and the discussions they cause might be part of the point of making these moral laws so challenging and unchangeable.

Right and wrong do not change, so lets change ourselves and society to match them.

Quote: Face

Not long ago, and I'm sure terapined could confirm, copying and distributing other people's music was highly desired. The mark of a good hippie had less to do with quality of tie-die and more to do with quantity of mixed tapes. And those tapes would get pushed and shared, opening up new fans and getting the word out, advertising for groups that kept it out of corporate and into the hands of the fans. It was viewed as "great". Now, we call it "piracy" and it is a "terrible offense" with fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to 5 years. Who isn't aware of at least one case where some soccer mom now owes $1.Xmm in fines for downloading Disney songs?

Just an off topic comment on the above since I am mentioned :-)
As a deadhead, we taped the Grateful Dead and shared the tapes and music freely.
Live complete shows, not mix tapes.
It continues today with a variety of bands allowing taping such as the Allman Brothers, Phish, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones ect.
I am actually quite active in the music downloading scene and am probably sharing something right this moment via bit torrent.
My favorite sites for downloading
bt.etree.org
thetradersden.org
dimeadozen.org

For example Christine McVeigh just rejoined Fleetwood Mac and played a show recently with the band.
Too me its an important show so I downloaded it and am probably sharing it right now via bit torrent.
Am I in danger of a fine or imprisonment. Of course not :-)
Its in the details.
If I downloaded the Rumours album and was sharing it, yea I am in trouble.
This is a live concert of a particular show 9/30/14 Minneapolis (tour opener). The record company is not selling this particular recording or show.
Therefore, no damages. I am safe :-)
These above sites make sure everything is on the up and up, all commercial recordings are banned.
Live music, that's another story.

Quote: FrGamble

Face, welcome to the wonderful world of moral theology or ethics.

These good examples and questions you pose exist precisely because right and wrong do not change. In none of the cases are we saying lets just change that silly old rule that we shouldn't kill innocent people. We know that we simply cannot. However, there are times when we recognize in extraordinary circumstances decisions need to be made that can lead to the death of the innocent. We twist and turn ourselves to try to find ways where we feel less culpable or even justified. In war we avoid civilian centers if possible. We put our sick and elderly we can't take care of on an ice flow so we can ease our conscience as they float away. We do not take any of this lightly, we cannot because again we cannot change our objective moral law.

We look at cases in where a hierarchy of values comes into conflict such as weighing the life of our friends or children versus telling a lie. Again at no time do we say lying is great and I think everybody should do it. We wrestle with this difficult moral decision. Some like St. Thomas Aquinas get creative in defining lying to be more like purposefully misleading or withholding something from someone who has a right to know. The prison guards do not have a right to know the location of our buddies and as far as I'm concerned my sister-in-law doesn't have a right to know that green is not her color.

So don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, that would be a mortal sin! Just because the objective moral laws that human beings are subjected to cause us many challenges and force us to wrestle with our actions doesn't mean we can freely decide as individuals or as a society to change them to our liking. In fact avoiding the awful situations you present in your examples of difficult moral questions and the discussions they cause might be part of the point of making these moral laws so challenging and unchangeable.

Right and wrong do not change, so lets change ourselves and society to match them.

Wrong. Of course right and wrong changes. I'll go with Hume's model of moral relativism.

In the wacky world of moral relativism you can't really say I am wrong. You have to say silly things like "I am right and you are right based on our own personal experiences and how we were brought up or the society you live in." Thank God I can still say you are wrong, because you most clearly are. You have also sucked the marrow out of your strong critique of the Church in regards to slavery or racism. Moral Relativism is willing to accept that those things were not wrong because everybody else was doing them.

Oh, so you admit then that those things were wrong but that the infinite grace of God did not reveal that to your Pope? I'm confused. If the Pope is the representative of God on the ground, then why did the Catholic church exercise, nay, create things that were wrong in the world, from an absolute point of view. And what makes you think that you have it right today?

You can't have it both ways. If your church flexed to change its position on slavery, science, and other positions, why not gender as well? Or are these papal prophecies? You must believe, based on the church's followings of moral relativism over time, that the Church must have some things wrong today? What are these?

And you're absolutely right: moral relativism accepts things because everyone does it. It allows us to change our points of view over time and give us insight into issues based on new facts, such as the fact that men and women are equal.