Specifically, she points out that if you want people to grow up and act in a moral way, you have to:
- decide what your moral standards are,
- encourage adherence to those standards, and
- discourage transgression of those standards
Of course, this runs entirely contrary to the basic tenets of modern multicultural client-centred social work. Don't expect it to be adopted anytime soon.
"Of course, this runs entirely contrary to the basic tenets of modern multicultural client-centred social work. Don't expect it to be adopted anytime soon."
ReplyDeleteI am not sure this is entirely fair, Patently. People are only capable of so much and are discouraged from going that extra mile which makes all the difference to others, whether it being to take up the gauntlet or to be a role model to others.
You identify the need to debate and define morals but in the absence of religion, it is where angels fear to tread, eh? The Church use to play an important role in this respect. Okay, Albert, it still does in some quarters but it is the other quarters that are of concern.
In my opinion, cleanliness is next to godliness, albeit that is in Leviticus 11-17. A bottle of bleach only costs 60p. I recall a midwife saying some single mothers are fantastic, but some have had no guidance in life. Perhaps cleanliness and self respect are places to start?
One obstacle is that it is politically incorrect for the media to ridicule or humiliate members of the public. I am not saying this is entirely wrong but it is therefore difficult for them to highlight falling moral standards. Gary Linekar ('Mr Goody Two Shoes' to some) was a great role model; dare there be many more current ones who are also popular? On another level even those in whom we should trust misguide us. The Number 1 offender is Gordon Brown with his blatant untruths. Oh, but I suppose we can excuse him as we didn't elect him. Everyone has excuses.
It will get worse as living standards fall here and society gets more competitive so yes, put a stick in the sand by restating to every individual "No laws but this is what is expect of you....." Well, most people know this but say "what the hell?"
Patently – welcome back!
ReplyDeleteMeasured
“You identify the need to debate and define morals but in the absence of religion, it is where angels fear to tread, eh? The Church use to play an important role in this respect. Okay, Albert, it still does in some quarters but it is the other quarters that are of concern.”
Quite. The key thing here is to understand the challenge to secularism. No one is saying that non-religious people can’t be good, and they certainly aren’t saying that religion somehow guarantees good behaviour. Rather, the challenge to secularism is to show (a) that moral judgments have some rational content and (b) that there is rational warrant to believe in that content.
If secularism cannot meet that challenge and present the answers in a convincing way to ordinary people then ordinary people will lose any reason to behave well if it doesn’t suit them. They will thus be in danger feeling reduced to hopelessness and violence. It seems fairly clear that even if secularism can meet (a) & (b) intellectually it is at least failing to make it clear to ordinary people at the moment.
In the meantime, secularists who fail to meet (a) & (b) leave themselves open to a charge of irrationality when they express moral indignation.
The idea that it would be difficult to set out a common set of "morals" which transcends religious and cultural differences is total defeatism. The vast majority of people have a basic set of right/wrong beliefs irrespective of where they are born or who brings them up. Clearly the mother of these boys was way outside any conceivable boundary of acceptable behaviour in the way she treated her children. She is the main protagonist.
ReplyDeleteBlue, I think the problem is not so much getting people to agree a common set of basic moral beliefs, as showing why those moral beliefs are binding even when they do not suit our self-interests. If secularism can do this, and explain it clearly, well and good.
ReplyDeleteBut it seems to me that more obvious effect of secularism is the opposite. For example, I think that we can – with or without God – recognise some things as just good. These beliefs are properly basic because they are not justified with reference to argumentation from earlier beliefs. But secularism tends to make people think this is irrational – “A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence” as Hume said. Furthermore, “moral facts” are obviously not physical, and so, on some readings of secularism, non-existent. The long term cultural effects of these corrosive – and false – secular beliefs, is to undermine people’s moral character, making it easier for them fail morally (which does not excuse them of course).
I don’t say that this is the inevitable outcome of secularism, only that those secularists who have removed God from public moral discourse really need to do better than they are doing: the mother of these boys, is probably less exceptional than we would like to think.
"those secularists who have removed God from public moral discourse really need to do better than they are doing"
ReplyDeleteAlbert, it is abit harsh to say some secularists have removed God from the public debate. Secularists do not believe in God so God is not relevant from their perspective. Unless you convert them, you have to adopt an approach that they can relate to (as well as the many different religions with differing beliefs and values). You are right (and I think we all agree on this, otherwise we would not be taking part in this discussion) that those concerned "really need to do better than they are doing".
I am no expert but I do find it fascinating so let me give my "common sense" point of view for what it is worth.
There are continuous spectra:
1. Behaviour. This ranges from murder and torture to "Don't say "What?" Say "Pardon."
2. Worthiness. This ranges from a belief that one's self interest is paramount with an unscrupulous disregard of others' interests to being prepared to sacrifice one's life for the greater good.
3. Values. No one would disagree that murder is unacceptable but this extends all the way to trivial manners. No one seems to remind us that civil courtesies are important apart from my mother and High Court judges who lead by example. I have seen customers who throw money at the cashier but expect the change to be handed back to them politely.
3. The Law. The law intervenes to discourage individuals from physically and financially harming each other, but where along the spectrum does this stop? I do not believe the law is entitled to snoop on our personal behaviour and criminalise trivial transgressions.
My argument is that it is high time that those elected to govern us provide clear guidance about what is desirable and/or unacceptable behaviour of each individual in society. This will be determined by deciding where on these spectra 'the buck must stop.'
This may be time consuming and controversial. Everyone has different opinions. Religion can play a role. However, if all influential bodies speak with one voice, fewer objections should be less forthcoming, standards will be raised and people will have more confidence to raise concerns and condemn the immoral behaviour of others, such as the way this Eglington mother raised her children. The opinions and actions of those around her may have modified her behaviour.
So I would welcome:
•being reminded what my and others' moral standards should be
•being reminded that I will respected and similiarly treated by others to encourage adherence to those standards,
and
•being reminded that more people agreeing will discourage transgression of those standards.
Can this happen?
“Albert, it is abit harsh to say some secularists have removed God from the public debate. Secularists do not believe in God so God is not relevant from their perspective.”
ReplyDeleteThanks Measured. You’re quite right to pick me up on that – let me clarify what I mean. As I’ve said before, I have no objections to the idea that secularism means everyone may contribute to public discourse regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of them. It seems to me that some such idea is essential to democracy – so of course, I do not expect secularists to express themselves as theists. But that is not the secularism we now have.
The secularism we now have is of the sort that says no one may contribute in the public sphere unless his views are consonant with a certain kind of secularist orthodoxy – let’s call it naturalism. Accordingly, religious people can now only contribute in the public sphere insofar as they make their views conform to that naturalist orthodoxy. We see this most clearly in the famous expression “We don’t do God,” but it affects just about any aspect of the moral debate. The most generous interpretation of this move to impose naturalism is that it is based on the bogus and unimaginative assumption that such naturalism is somehow philosophically neutral.
So no, I don’t expect secularists to “do God” in the things they say and do. But neither do I expect them to disallow me from “doing God” in the things I say and do. In other words, I expect public discourse to hear from both points of view, not be foreclosed in favour of one or other. But if secularists (or those secularists who are calling the shots anyway) do disallow God, and all the many ways in which Christianity has underpinned the moral life of this nation for a millennium and a half, then in the very least I expect them to have thought through what they are going to put in his place, morally speaking. Their failure to do this is utterly irresponsible and frankly unintelligent.
But not only have they failed in this, I think they have actually created an epistemological and metaphysical situation in which moral discourse seems meaningless: enter the mother of the Edlington children.
So responding to the rest of your remarks, my question would be What else needs to be true for your moral concerns to be met?
"The secularism... says no one may contribute in the public sphere unless his views are consonant with a certain kind of secularist orthodoxy... Accordingly, religious people can now only contribute in the public sphere insofar as they make their views conform to that naturalist orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteIf true, this is a sad state of affairs. Everyone has the right to air their views and be listened to. I think it should be explicitly pointed out that to interrupt others is rude. Call me old fashioned maybe, but I only really became aware of this in legal circles. Whether these views are respected or tolerated is more controversial; that depends on various factors. However, there should be no excuse for insult or rudeness towards when others are expressing their views.
do disallow God... Christianity has underpinned the moral life of this nation for a millennium and a half... expect them to have thought through what they are going to put in his place, morally speaking. Their failure to do this is utterly irresponsible and frankly unintelligent.
That is a point well made. Considerable weight should be placed on Christianity's contribution to the debate as it appears you have some experience of these matters and you have many followers.
I think they have actually created an epistemological and metaphysical situation in which moral discourse seems meaningless
Well, maybe. If it is true, let's do something about it. Put your stick in the sand and lay down moral behaviour explicitly. Do you just stick to the commandments?
For example, should you not explain what it is "to love your neighbour as yourself like you"? Does 'neighbour' and 'love' need defining? Do other religions agree? Muslims and others may disagree so their views would also be helpful. So much needs clarification about our common moral standards. At least I suspect you will find it easier to justify arguments.
Btw would Christianity have anything to say about spitting in public?
Regarding public discourse: I didn’t mean that people interrupt me – and I wouldn’t worry too much if they did, if people are that rude, there’s little point trying to engage in reasoned discussion with them! (I would point out that most people I meet, regardless of their faith, are very interested to discuss religious matters.) I mean God is disallowed in official public political debate – “We don’t do God” was something that came from Downing Street. As a Christian, my faith is not some part of my opinions I can readily jettison, rather it is what forms the whole of my world-view. So to disallow God in official public debate is effectively to disallow my voice and those like me. I don’t think that’s democratic, but if that’s what the present kind of secularism requires in order to win the debate, then so much the worse for that kind of secularism.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, whether particular views should be respected or tolerated is controversial, but I do not see that a secularism in moral crisis is really in any position to assume that that burden of proof applies to everyone else and not themselves (forgive my grammar). It’s the idea that secularism has some kind of automatic entitlement to judge everyone else without being juded itself, to decide what can be said, that is at stake here.
Do you just stick to the commandments?
I uphold the full teaching of the Catholic faith, and endeavour to live by it – though the standards are exacting and with St Peter “I am a sinful man” (cf.Lk.5.8).
For example, should you not explain what it is "to love your neighbour as yourself like you"? Does 'neighbour' and 'love' need defining?
Jesus answers the question of who is my neighbour with his parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10.25-37). But the parable has more to it than its surface meaning. Jews considered Samaritans to be low-lifes, and yet it is the Samaritan whom Jesus calls his brethren to learn from: “What does he [the Samaritan] do?” asks Pope Benedict “He does not ask how far his obligations of solidarity extend. Nor does he ask about the merits required for eternal life. Something else happens: His heart is wrenched open…Struck in his soul by the lightening flash of mercy, he himself now becomes a neighbour heedless of any question or danger…The issue is no longer which other person is a neighbour to me or not. The question is about me. I have to become a neighbour, and when I do, the other person counts for me ‘as myself.’”
We can go further because Jesus does not just command us to love our neighbours, but says also “Love your enemies” (Lk.6.35). And if we want to know what that kind of love looks like, we can look at him on the cross imploring God on behalf of the very people who put him to death: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Lk23.34.
So whereas, the problem of secularism is the worry that it offers too little, the problem with Christianity is that there is too much, it is too rich, too demanding: “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried” as GK Chesterton put it.
Do other religions agree? Muslims and others may disagree so their views would also be helpful. So much needs clarification about our common moral standards.
I wouldn’t want to speak for others, but in any case, I’m not suggesting that Christian morality be simply imposed on anyone. What I’m more interesting in is finding out what the presuppositions are necessary for moral debate. It's clear Christianity has the categories for such a debate. What are the categories of secularism? Until we know that, it’s actually rather hard to have a moral discussion at all and the result is a general decline of moral standards (though clearly there are other factors too in that decline).
Btw would Christianity have anything to say about spitting in public?
I don’t expect there’s anything specific. Though to spit at someone is clearly an attack on their dignity and spitting generally risks spreading disease.
Cheers for link, and welcome back...
ReplyDelete"One obstacle is that it is politically incorrect for the media to ridicule or humiliate members of the public. "
Except in reality tv shows, of course. Then it's perfectly fine.
Albert,
ReplyDeleteThank you for replying to my comment so generously. I should have remembered "to love enemies." That is a tall order and not one that would be universally recognised!
I was not aware of the 10, Downing Street comment. It surprises me since those that rule and most religions have used each other over the centuries to reinforce their positions. Rise above it.
I am no authority, have no authority nor am an authoritarian but I do attach importance to this subject. Morals lead to behaviour which encompasses manners. A discussion paper followed by written submissions is probably the way for politicians to proceed.
"It's clear Christianity has the categories for such a debate. What are the categories of secularism?"
I am no angel so I do not fear to tread. Therefore, my initial thoughts for the categories are:
1. Self (look after yourself, hygiene, try not to be a burden on others...)
2. Others (moderate behaviour, respect, think of others, manners...)
3. Children (femily responsibilities exist..
Cite this:
IF A CHILD....
If a child lives with criticism,
he learns to condemn.
If a child lives with hostility,
he learns to fight.
If a child lives with ridicule,
he learns to be shy.
If a child lives with shame,
he learns to feel guilty.
If a child lives with tolerance,
he learns to be patient.
If a child lives with encouragement,
he learns confidence.
If a child lives with praise,
he learns to appreciate.
If a child lives with fairness,
he learns justice.
If a child lives with security,
he learns to have faith.
If a child lives with approval,
he learns to like himself.
If a child lives with acceptance and friendship,
He learns to find love in the world.
Author Unknown
4. Property (do not deface, damage or steal...)
5. Environment (no gratuitous pain to animals, try not to be wasteful...)
I am sure you can improve on these five categories so please do so. Please contribute the categories according to Christianity. There are other wider questions too. If common morals are to apply to everyone, the bar probably has to be set low and unlike Singapore, it is just said this is expected of each person? One cannot interfere too much.
Measured,
ReplyDeleteI was not aware of the 10, Downing Street comment. It surprises me since those that rule and most religions have used each other over the centuries to reinforce their positions. Rise above it.
Yes, in some societies, religion can be used to reinforce the state, but when there is divergence of beliefs as in our society, then new issues naturally arise. I think the secularist idea is to try to find common ground and since religious belief is not common, to exclude religious belief from debate and therefore to operate with a kind of naturalism.
What’s being missed here though is that naturalism is also not common. Naturalism excludes many of the beliefs the religious find most important, things like the sanctity of life. Now if the discussion has to take place in a naturalistic context, and many of the religious person’s beliefs are excluded from the debate before it has even begun, the outcome will automatically be naturalistic – in other words, the outcome has been decided in favour of one group at the expense of the other even before the discussion begins. “Rise above it” you say. How do I rise above it?
On categories for morality. I’m not so much asking for examples of things that are morally important, I am asking what it is about these things that makes them morally important and how do we know they are morally important? I might say (to return to an earlier discussion) certain actions are wrong because they violate the sanctity of human life – but the sanctity of human life is one of those religious categories we’re not allowed to use. “Human life is valuable” is not a truth of logic, mathematics, science, or history. So on naturalism what makes a human being valuable and how do we know it? (and what kind society would you expect from a culture that cannot provide clear, comprehensible answers to those questions?)
Measured - I like the poem, and identify with quite a few lines.
ReplyDeleteAlbert - both your and Measured's comments in this debate are fascinating and illuminating. I'm reading with interest.
Thank you both!
Julia - no worries! Glad to be back!
Yes, sorry Measured, I meant to say how much appreciated your reflections. But then I edited out a large chunk of my comment (which was, as so often, far too long) and seem to have lost that bit too!
ReplyDeleteAlbert,
ReplyDeleteYes, it is frustrating how only ten words a line makes succinct comments look cumbersome.
If you were the C of E, I appreciate there would be an ongoing problem with the executive but you must still contribute to the debate. Some difficulties are best resolved by those concerned.
I have no influence over 10 Downing Street but it is a pleasure to discuss issues with one very lucid Christian. This discussion concerned common sense and hence self-interest and preservation must feature in determining the categories. I think you have touched on religious tolerance being expected in a secular society ("But neither do I expect them to disallow me from “doing God” in the things I say and do. In other words, I expect public discourse to hear from both points of view, not be foreclosed in favour of one or other.") which comes under 2) Others -respect for each other.
Perhaps we should compare and contrast cornerstones (I appreciate one of yours will be the existence of God) followed by listing the categories or common morals these give rise to. It is possible that even the most simple premises, such as the santity of life, might need to be qualified though, if you do need to iterate what the majority might regard as self evident. We are just detemining basic common morals. Over to you.
Finally,
Patently,
I know you did not have an easy childhood. I read one of your earlier posts many moons ago and was very moved by it.
Thanks Measured.
ReplyDeleteActually I’m not sure I’m being as clear as I would like. Perhaps the following syllogism will help tease out the issues:
1. If there are moral absolutes then God exists.
2. There are moral absolutes.
3. Therefore God exists.
Now this isn’t the position I’ve been defending, but what’s interesting is the number of atheist philosophers who seem to accept 1. (Nietzsche, Russell, Sartre, early Wittgenstein – I think that’s fair, though it's not really my field). But since they deny the conclusion they have to deny 2.
Their position might be expressed thus:
(1. If there are moral absolutes then God exists.)
5. God does not exist.
6. Therefore there are no moral absolutes.
It seems to me therefore that there is some plausibility to 1. Why should we think this? Clearly, if you’re the kind of atheist who thinks all there is is physical matter then the kinds of categories you would presumably accept would be these:
a. Matter (and material truths)
b. Logic (and logical truths)
c. Mathematics (and mathematical truths).
I can’t see how morality fits into this.
Furthermore, if all there is is matter moving mindlessly about, then why especially should anything be of any objective value?
Finally, if all I can know is logical, mathematical and empirical truth, then how could I possibly know moral truth?
Now a society based on this kind of naturalism has more or less defined morality out of the debate before it even begins. For example, in the latest round of Parliamentary debates on abortion, the only criteria that were allowed to be considered were scientific ones. How can you decide the value of a life by science alone? It’s surely a kind of category mistake that forecloses the discussion against the possibility that the life in question is valuable.
Does any of this take the debate forward at all?
Albert,
ReplyDeleteYes, I follow what you are saying but you may end up being unintentionally excluded from the debate. Is the Church on philosophical grounds going to disagree with everyone being reminded to behave in some moral fashion? Do you not think that everyone, whether they believe in God or not, should not behave in a certain way? Common sense tells me that not everyone who drives on the right side of the road believes in God.
I am not sure we would be having this conversation if there were moral absolutes. Even torture can be justified by some. Let's talk about a universal 'Code of Conduct.' If you are a person, this is how in this country we expect you to behave.
Now what categories would Christianity give that? just the commandments?
Measured,
ReplyDeleteyou may end up being unintentionally excluded from the debate.
In many contexts that has happened already. Though the grounds seem arbitrary especially from a secularist culture which seems unable to find foundations of its morality.
Is the Church on philosophical grounds going to disagree with everyone being reminded to behave in some moral fashion?
No. Why do you ask? I don’t follow.
Do you not think that everyone, whether they believe in God or not, should not behave in a certain way?
Yes of course, but I’m interested in what the foundations are for discerning right behaviour.
Common sense tells me that not everyone who drives on the right side of the road believes in God.
Again, you’ve lost me.
I am not sure we would be having this conversation if there were moral absolutes.
Actually, I’m doubtful that one can have any morality without at least some moral absolutes. Relativist ideologies have an amusing tendency to be self-referentially incoherent. Consider this proposition:
1. All truth is relative.
Clearly, if some truth is not relative 1 is false, but if 1 is true then 1 itself is relative, in which case there are circumstances in which 1 isn’t true. So if 1 is true, there is at least one truth which is not relative, but that contradicts 1.
Evidently then, not all truth is relative.
It’s actually quite hard to frame a proposition to describe moral relativism, but let’s try this one.
2. No one may break the moral law unless the circumstances justify it.
But clearly 2 would be part of the moral law, so 2 also could be broken if the circumstances justify it. So although immoral action A may be wrong according to 2, a person may still commit A because he can use 2 to undermine 2.
If there is such a thing as morality either it is all relative or some of it is absolute. If my argument holds, morality is not all relative, therefore either some of it is absolute or there is no such thing as morality.
Now what categories would Christianity give that? just the commandments?
You’re quite right to press me on that – I’ve been avoiding answering it for too long because I’ve been trying to clarify the foundations and categories of morality.
I think the principle for morality is that human life is valuable. The trouble is, as I’ve been arguing, it’s hard to see on secularism that anything in the world can be valuable. As Wittgenstein puts it:
“…in it [the world] no value exists--and if it did exist, it would have no value. If there is any value that does have value, it must lie outside the whole sphere of what happens and is the case. For all that happens and is the case is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie within the world,
since if it did it would itself be accidental. It must lie outside the world. So too it is impossible for there to be propositions of ethics. Propositions can express nothing that is higher. It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental.” Tractatus 6.41-6.421
This then is my worry: Wittgenstein is right, and the reason we have a moral crisis is because a secularism which denies that anything “outside the world” or is “transcendental” can be discussed automatically ends up not discussing morality. Things are permitted or prohibited not because they are right or wrong, but because “right” and “wrong” have no real meaning.
So we need to ground the value of human life in something valuable that is “outside the world” or “transcendental”. My suggestion is that this is God, from whom all goodness comes. Human life is valuable because by being created it is analogous to this supreme value. Actions are therefore good or bad according to whether they make human life flourish (or not) and whether they aim at this supreme good (or not).
Obviously, this is just an outline, but perhaps it crystallises my concerns here.
Albert,
ReplyDeleteI believe we are making progress! I appreciate the conflict between relative and absolute. I understand that undermining is a potential difficulty. I think that if the Law Lords got hiold of this, the likes of Lord Hoffman whose intellect I hugely respect, would remove all compassion and basically say it is unworkable. I do not agree if the majority agree with the proposition. If something is in one's self interest, like driving on the right side of the road, it is done without opposition. That was what I was getting at.
Human life is undoubtedly precious. Is this at the expense of all other life on the planet? Would you have anything to say about the quality of human life? I say this as it affects the approach one adopts to a great number of issues from manners to human reproduction.
I need to time to think about other points you have made.
Actually, I’m doubtful that one can have any morality without at least some moral absolutes. Could you elaborate on this?
Measured,
ReplyDeleteI believe we are making progress!
Me too. It’s actually a rare privilege to be able to discuss these matters at such depth on the internet – my thanks for that.
Let me begin with the need for some moral absolutes. I think people think morality is relative because over time our understanding of right and wrong changes. However, it does not follow that because our understanding of right and wrong changes that right and wrong are changing. After all, through scientific development our understanding of the universe changes, but it does not follow that the universe changes when our understanding changes. Hopefully all that is happening is that we are seeing the truth of the universe and morality more clearly. When our understanding of morality changes, it is because (hopefully) we are moving closer to the true moral absolutes.
Sometimes though, it may just be that our understanding of morality hasn’t changed, but that we have learnt to apply it better. For example, outwardly the teaching of the Catholic Church on the death penalty seems to have changed. It used to be in favour, now it is almost invariably against. One of the reasons it used to be in favour was because it was thought that the death penalty was necessary for the common good – to protect the innocent etc. Now, through careful study, it seems that this isn’t so clear. There are worries that the innocent get wrongly executed, that society is brutalised by the death penalty, and that, in the end, the use of the death penalty doesn’t actually lower the murder figures. So the underlying morality has remained the same: protect the innocent and maintain the common good, but the application of this morality has altered.
Is that the kind of answer you were looking for on moral absolutes, or were you asking a different question?
If something is in one's self interest, like driving on the right side of the road, it is done without opposition.
Provided of course, that my self-interest doesn’t unjustly injure another human being or is immoral in some other way. But yes, in saying that morality is about human flourishing, we don’t mean that we should ensure only others flourish. We should see that our own needs are met (all things being equal), after all, Jesus said “Love your neighbour as you love yourself.” Clearly, if I do not love myself, my love of neighbour isn’t going to amount to anything. Catholic moral and pastoral teaching seeks to help us to learn to love ourselves, and as a convert to Catholicism, I would say it is very successful.
Oh dear, this is long, I'm going to have to continue in another comment!
Human life is undoubtedly precious. Is this at the expense of all other life on the planet?
ReplyDeleteHuman life is more precious than anything else on the planet including other forms of life. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it:
“2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.”
There is a key balance here: we must care for the environment, but we must not care for the environment at the expense of genuine human flourishing. Accordingly, it is wrong to abuse animals, but their welfare is not more important than ours.
Would you have anything to say about the quality of human life?
A morality built upon human value is necessarily concerned with the quality of human life. Hence, when John the Baptist asked if Jesus was the “one who is to come”, Jesus replied: "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is he who takes no offense at me." Mt.11.4-6. We often find Jesus improving the situation of people because he has “compassion” on them. The Semitic root of the word “compassion” is to do with the womb, so Jesus is expressing a motherly care for her children when he seeks to help. When he describes the basis of God’s judgment, he makes it clear that God is looking at the practical ways in which we have tried to improve the lot of our brothers and sisters (Mt.25-46). Accordingly, some of our greatest saints are who have cared heroically for others.
However, the quality of life can never “trump” the value or sanctity of human life. Rather our concern for the quality of life is founded on our belief in the value or sanctity of human life. Accordingly, practices which aim at killing innocent human life for the sake of the quality of human life are self-contradictory and always wrong. We are not required to prolong human life at all costs (such as when treatment becomes burdensome and futile), but we can never directly take innocent human life.
Albert,
ReplyDeleteJust fascinating. I can see myself being to morals as Eleanor Roosevelt was to Human Rights - I wish!
Protect the innocent and maintain the common good have emerged as two further possible premises. I now think some aspects are best left alone and it needs to be stressed that this is not a social contract but what is expected....
I think 'flourishing' may need defining. Excellent word.
Next week I will have thought more and be back at a desk. I might even do some reading. Determining common morality may have disadvantages as it limits the flexibilIty of morality but if this morality is absolute, will that matter? Is morality like intellect with different standards but both benefit from education? What you wrote Albert is so well expressed. At some stage patently may obligingly start a new thread so it is easier to scroll through the comments.
I now think some aspects are best left alone and it needs to be stressed that this is not a social contract but what is expected....
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The Catholic Church doesn’t hope that all her teachings will be imposed as law. Rather she aims to help shape a culture in which people act well because they understand the value of acting well, rather than because they are coerced by law. One of the reasons we have so much legislation now is precisely because secularism struggles to create culture (“culture” of course comes from “cult” – in the non-creepy sense this just means the practice and understanding of a faith).
Flourishing: fulfilling human potential for goodness. This is not just moral goodness but physical goodness. It seems to me this is the heart of Catholic moral teaching and the heart of what God does for us both in creation and in salvation.
Certainly there can be some flexibility on morality. In the Catholic Church there is a great breadth of moral thought: there are many things that are a matter of conscience or prudential judgment. But these are about applying the moral absolutes, which themselves stem from grasping those fundamental goods necessary for human flourishing.
Is morality like intellect with different standards but both benefit from education?
I think morality and reason go together, and we have a responsibility to form our consciences by reflection and discussion (for Catholics of course that means listening to the Church and trying to grasp not just what the Church teaches, but why the Church teaches it). While some things are always wrong or always obligatory there are certainly varying standards of how one puts morality into practice in one's life. A Franciscan lives (and loves) quite differently from the married person. What is expected from each is quite different.
At some stage patently may obligingly start a new thread so it is easier to scroll through the comments.
Yes, it would be good!
I’m going to be a lot busier this week, so I may not be quite as quick contributing to discussions.