Who Has the Highest Morals
This is a question that has confounded humans since we've know what humans think and talk about. I wonder if it was argued during prehistoric times.
Every reader knows there are truckloads of books written about morals. Most of these books, I assume, tell us the morals of the author are better than the morals of those he/she does not like. Today we can read comments by conservatives that our new President, Joe Biden, has low morals or maybe no morals for championing abortion rights.
Prior to his election any number Christian leaders shouted to the rooftops Donald Trump must be reelected because it was he who stacked the Supreme Court with anti abortion judges. This meant being anti abortion is the only way to qualify as a person of high morals.
The Catholic Church has declared several sexual practices to be not moral. These include birth control and abortion. The basis for this is "Natural Law." Looking at Natural Law in the Catholic Encyclopedia, however, one comes across a curious sentence. It says dispensation from Nature Law can be granted in cases where a change of conditions modify the application of the Law. Is this why nearly all Catholic couples ignore Natural Law when it comes to birth control? Is this why the proportion of women obtaining abortions mirrors the proportion of Catholics? That is, are Catholics aware of this phrase located deep in the Catholic Encyclopedia are have decided dispensation is due them because of a "change of conditions" in their lives?
The fact is there are healthy disagreements in our society, and in many others, about the definition of "good" moral values. My guess is that this is why this "out" or escape clause appears in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I came across a beautiful (at least to me) summation of where we are in the debate about morals. The source is philosopher Alasdair MacIndyre's book AfterVirtue. I must mention Wikipedia describes this book, now in its 3rd printing, as one of the most important works of the 20th century in morals and political philosophy. In it he writes "the moral culture of advanced modernity..(is) one of unresolved moral and apparently unreasolvable moral.." debates.
Whenever one comes across a person preaching that his/her version of morals is higher than those he/she dislikes, for example in the abortion issue, it might be helpful to remember the above quote. While certainly there are, to me at least, non negotiable moral positions, there seems no way to bring to conclusion the debate on who has the highest and best moral standards.
MacIntyre! way to go old man. Unfortunately, I think that he is way out of your league, partly because he writes from a more or less Catholic perspective and because he is really a hard read. he is, to put it another way, a scholar who doesn't lend himself well to people who want to pull out a quote here and there, hoping that he can be seen as favoring some ideology or other. I will leave it at that, at least for now. But now a question: you say that some moral principles are non-negotiable (meaning absolute). what are these principles? and how do you know that they are absolute?
ReplyDeleteP.S. a final bit of advice. don't count of Wiki for a really good synopsis of Mac's book. get the book and read it. he has written several other books, get them, too. warning. reading them would leave less time for Christian bashing.
MacIntyre! way to go old man. Unfortunately, however, he is quite a way beyond your ken, partly because he is a Catholic writer and partly because he is a scholar whose works do not comport well with people who want to pull out a quote here and there, hoping that it (the quote) will support some ideological presupposition. that said, I have too questions. 1) you say that some moral principles are non-negotiable (i.e. absolute). what, specifically, are these principles? 2) how do you know that these principles are absolute? I await your response, hoping that it will make some sense. P.S. this my second try: my first attempt appears to have bombed. Mac has written several books. I suggest that you get them and read them. Wiki is not a good source for a synopsis of any difficult scholarly work. anyway a tough read would give you less time for Christian bashing, a consummation devoutly to be wished.
ReplyDeletetsm--MacIntyre, I'm well aware of his other books and that he is a Catholic. I'm also well aware Wikipedia is not a scholarly review. And, yes I took his sentence out of context so make of it what you will.
DeleteJon,
ReplyDeleteI still read, on occasion, an opinion suggesting the poor are in some way morally deficient or suffer from a diseased morality and must prove they are deserving of welfare payments as if wealth were a measure of probity. The authors of such nonsense out themselves as morally deficient.
We are told by some “Original Sin” is inherited. It is contracted not committed. We are also told by the same that a god endowed us with a default set of moral values. So here we are hosting “innate morality” and “inherent evil” together in the same conscience space. The mongoose and the viper. And rarely time for reason, only instinct and intuition. I don’t see much room for bad conscience in that noisy space. Perhaps it is taught.
Ardy B "So here we are hosting 'innate morality' and 'inherent evil' together in the same conscience space."
ReplyDeleteYes, how does that happen? There is a "perfect god" but he promised to change his evil ways at New Testament times. Why would a perfect god need to change? I guess that's why the Catholic Encyclopedia has the disclaimer that even though Natural Law is the truth, it cannot be followed sometimes because $hit happens.