no such thing
morality- concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
standards- An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion
norms- A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical
_________________________________
accdg to greensophia
Standards” are what we call “norms” which are man-made laws or rules. Morality on the other hand deals with laws that are made not by man but by God. Morality is not the same as the standards set by mere mortals.
_________________________________
same dog, different collars
no thing must have come from nothing. no there is no distinction between morality and standards for the latter had come from the former. and indeed, you are correct that the former came from the teachings of God. but that is a half-baked truth..
not all criteria morality had come from God alone for there are also that came from the perversion of his teachings by mortals, and some have come from society's culture and environment.
now, is there a universal morality? no, there is none. for there is no universal criteria of good and evil; right or wrong. there is no is no universal culture, neither a universal environment. a society's concept of right or wrong is dictated by society's culture and environment and society's religious leanings. and since there is no universal religion, all the more that there is no universal morality.
posted by ray john @ 8:27 PM
5 Comments:
First and foremost I would like to elaborate more on what I meant by “morality”. Morality is the law of God and by “law of God” I do not mean the Ten Commandments for those laws are only true for Christians. You see the morality that I am talking about are innate laws to man and for me these laws are not that many. Hmmm.. I can only think of two: Do not harm others and yourself and be honest to yourself and others. The morality that I am talking about is not perverted. It is something pure inside of us humans. It is the basis of conscience, of feeling guilty after you hurt someone or after telling something that is not true. Now, do you think that is perverted? How come?
“…there is no universal criteria of good and evil; right or wrong.” Gosh.. this statement is very dangerous. Please don’t you dare tell this to children. Saying such is just like saying: Do whatever you want, there are no rules anyway.” Haay.. anyway, there you go again with your relativism principle. Ok, let me give you a situation. For example A killed B. A said that killing others is not bad in their culture thus what he did to B is not a crime at all. So what now? What if everyone who would kill a person would say that: “Oh, no… it is not a crime. In my country it is not against the law to kill someone. In fact it is noble for us to do such thing. I did not do anything wrong. Can I go now? I need to go back to my work..” Wow.. now what kind of world is that going to be? I can’t imagine a world where people would act according to their “own laws” (maybe the world that we have now is not that far from that kind of world, what with this chaotic environment that we have now). You see there is deception there. People are deceived or rather they want to be deceived by the notion that there is no universal law for then it will give them the freedom to do whatever they desire. Is that what you are advocating? And then you argue that there is no freedom. Oh, well. If there is no morality and the man-made laws are perverted, what are your guides in living? Is that something “original” in its form? Or are you like a blind man without even a piece of stick to guide you by? Ok.. ito na lang. How do you live your life? Do you follow the perverted laws?
I did not say that there is a universal religion but there is something true on all religions and that is the belief that there is Someone up there who is more powerful than us and that this Someone has some power over us and yes my friend, morality is one of the evidences that He is true.
I will say this again. If everything is relative, then there is no truth. If there is no truth, what then is the meaning of life?
ok lemme put things in my sense of proper perspective...
first, I am not advocating that there should be no criteria of good and evil... I am not advocating and from what I have gathered on your reaction, it is you who is advocating. you are advocating for what you think things should be. I am just living with reality and I am just speaking as a mere mortal who observes things as they transpire...
ok. conscience...
based on my recollection of the lesson I took in my moral theology class in san beda, conscience has two uuuhhhmmmm????? parts? (I cant think of a more politically correct term)- the synderesis and the conscientia.
synderesis, as far as I know, is human beings' knowledge of God' moral law, while conscientia is human beings' application f such knowledge. now, according to thomas aquinas, which contributed in my outlook on morality, synderesis is absolute, which can back your claim of universal morality, while conscientia is fallible. according to aquinas, even erroneous dictates of conscience are binding and must be followed even if they contradict the orders of a superior whatever (I cannot think of a proper term again.)
now, to you, morality is absolute and conscience is the basis of morality for it is the "inner feeling" of good or evil. now, if conscietia is fallible, then there can be no absolute conscience, therefore, there is no absolute morality. there can be no absolute thing if that thing or a part of it is fallible. do you get me?
ok, to my next argument. conscience, you say is the basis of your universal morality. and conscience is "man's" inner voice of good and evil. now, MAN...man is vested with a critical mind and such line of thinking and emotions of man is highly influenced by man's environment, learnings, teachings, and culture. now, man's inner voice is dictated by his emotions and reasons. if such emotions are highly dependent on man's external environment, and such external environment (e.g. learnings, teachings, and culture) varies from one locality to another, then man's inner voice varies from one man's inner voice from another locality. dyou get where I am driving at? now, if such inner voice, or conscience varies from one locality to another, then morality varies as well. thus making morality not universal.
ok, using your A and B illustration. assuming A is a judge of whatever country that has no death penalty, while B is a judge of Texas, state with the most number death convictions in the US. to A, sentencing death is immoral since its country does not see the need for it and that they, let say, are PRO-LIFE people. to B, on the other hand, sentencing death is not necessarily immoral for its state recognizes the need for it that the state does not see the immorality of such act..
stretching my illustration further, something that transcends the bounds of legalese paradigm, A is an urbanize Filipino, while B is an indigenous person from the mountains of tugegarao (I forgot the name of their tribe, but they are called headhunters in their locality.) to A, who is also a practicing catholic, killing is immoral based on the dictates of his religion and culture, which is also pegged on his religion. to B, on the other, killing is a way of life. especially executing those who have done the society wrong. this is based on the dictates of his culture and beliefs.
relativism? relativism to the extent that morality is relative to the locality of the society.
Oh, well. If there is no morality and the man-made laws are perverted, what are your guides in living?
I did not say there is no morality, infact there is. what I am contending is that there is no universal morality.
The school that I graduated from does not have any theology class or whatever on its curriculum but what I remember about Aquinas is his effort to reconcile philosophy (specifically Aristotle’s Ф) with Christianity. He says that philosophy and religion are not contradictory and that in fact these two reinforce each other. For him, there are two ways or paths to a moral life: the Bible (religion) and reason (philosophy). But anyway ok… you argue: “now, if conscietia is fallible, then there can be no absolute conscience, therefore, there is no absolute morality. there can be no absolute thing if that thing or a part of it is fallible.” I don’t agree with this… it is a fallacy. You see morality is not a part of conscience so whether the latter is fallible or not, it does not affect the nature of the former. Conscience is the alarm bell of humanity; it rings and sends warning when we disobey the law of God. Further, the mere fact that there is a part of conscience that is absolute and that recognizes God’s law which is of course absolute, proves the existence of the absolute morality that I am talking about. Now, do you get me?
Ok, on your next argument. “conscience, you say is the basis of your universal morality.” I did not say this, Mr. Bangi. You misunderstood what I said. I meant the other way around: morality is the basis of conscience. Read my fist comment again if you don’t believe me. Ah, there it is again. “now, if such inner voice, or conscience varies from one locality to another, then morality varies as well. thus making morality not universal.” Aside from the fallacy that I pointed earlier I can see here that you are making the conscience one sided by arguing such. Wait, do you believe in Aquinas when he said that conscience is composed of two “parts”? I believe that conscience, if not absolute, at least possesses a part that is absolute and if ever there are indeed two parts of it I believe that the “absolute part” of the conscience is far more powerful than the other one which is affected by man’s environment. I do not deny the influence of one’s environment and culture on one’s thinking but surely there must be a limit to it. You said so yourself: “no thing must have come from nothing.” The law of God is the basis of some of the laws that we have now, it is the starting point. “not all criteria morality had come from God alone…” So, you somehow believe that there are laws that come from God? What do you call those laws then? Do you not think that if those laws came from God then they should be absolute?
Death penalty is a man-made law and for me it goes against morality for they are making themselves like gods. They don’t have any right to take any one’s life (however heavy the case that is against a man) since they are not the ones who created life itself. There are other forms of punishment that can teach humans to abide the laws and certainly death penalty is just too much a punishment for a human being. Only God can take a life without committing a sin.
Now, regarding your last illustration… hmmmm.. ok. It is a very sensitive issue when it comes to IPs. You see they have their own laws there, indigenous laws that are made by their forefathers. Further, IPs usually are non-Christians but they also believe that there is a God or gods for that matter. They are too inclined with their own culture and beliefs and I do not say that this is wrong. I have high respect for these people and I admire them for their beautiful culture. But my own view on tribes that kill as a way of life (I know my anthropologist teacher in college will disagree with this and I may be branded as ethnocentric) is that their conscience had been put off for they practice killing for centuries already. Yes, it is ethnocentrism but this is my stand and I will stick with this for I believe that no one, no group, and no culture is above the law of God. And who knows if they do not feel guilty by killing a person? And maybe they do that because of necessity; maybe they do not have enough food which means that they do not voluntarily kill a person. It is hard to tell.
Let me give you another example. A was killed in a far away village where “killing is a way of life”. But A is not a part of that village; he was just this lost man from a city. Now, is that fair? How then can you reconcile the beliefs of a village from that of the city? Thus, there must be a law that is universal to man and that is the law of God.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ill get back on this as soon as i fix the mess i am in. got my mind entangled these days that i cant understand a thing that you are saying. get back to you asap
Post a Comment
<< Home