Mail bag: What is 'moral' truth, and what is 'immoral' truth?
.jpg)
VanGogh's Good Samaritan
Thankyou to EditorASC (a.k.a. Bob39) who, like Socrates the Gadfly, has persistently countered my thinking over the past six months with this question: “What is ‘moral’ truth, and what is ‘immoral’ truth?” Thankyou as well to Kim Caton Isenhower for helping bring to light that “It is a matter of opinion whether or not babies should be tortured” is a moral truth claim.
First--truth is what corresponds to reality—truth is the way things are. To understand a critical realist perspective of truth, read Part 1 of the series “Moral realism and our rights and liberties”. Basically, there are three possible positions on truth: 1) we make truth up, 2) we discover truth, or 3) there is no discoverable truth. Since it is a contradiction to say it is true that there is no discoverable truth, the third option (at least skepticism, at most nihilism) is false. Since truth by definition is not ‘made up’—the first option (anti-realism, voluntarism) is false. That leaves the second option (realism, essentialism). EditorASC agrees with the second option, but argues that morality is about values, about how we feel things ought to be, not about the way things are (reality). The quickest answer to that is that the fulfilled ought (God), granted He exists, is part of the way things are (reality). But let’s slow down and take it one step at a time.
Morality means standards and ends (the ‘how’ and ‘why’), of social character and/or conduct. Morality may be created by the individual or cultural will, and/or perceived to be discovered in evolving human nature, or in an eternal social essence. While it may be true that a given morality exists in reality, its standards may or may not be "truth". Moral truth (or true morality) is those standards, ends, of social character and/or conduct which are true (corresponding to reality, which, as we just discussed, must necessarily include the fulfilled ought, or the ought is mere concept). A morality that exists in reality, without being true to the unchanging aspect of reality which is the fulfilled ought (God)—is a created morality. EditorASC maintains all morality is created, that there is no fulfilled ought to which moral truth corresponds, and that truth is about what “is”—not about how we feel things “ought” to be (and so he argues there is no ‘moral’ truth). If he is right—if there is no “real” fulfilled ought—then all morality, including our rights, is created and there is no moral truth (real fulfilled ought).
However, if you were to include all descriptive statements about morality to be moral truth statements, then “It is true that there is no ‘moral’ truth” would in fact be a contradiction. For example (provided by Kim Caton Isenhower), the statement “It is a matter of opinion whether or not we should torture babies” is a truth statement about morality—it is a moral truth statement. If it in fact corresponds to reality, then it constitutes moral truth. If it does not correspond to reality, then it is not true and is a creation. What one cannot claim is that there is no “fact of the matter” when it comes to morality—there “is” moral truth—even if it is something like “It is a matter of opinion whether or not we should torture babies.”
That is why it was necessary, in Part 2 of the “Moral realism and our rights and liberties” series, to point out evidence that we live against the idea that there is no moral truth (a real fulfilled ought). It is a contradiction to say “It is true that there is no ‘moral’ truth” (descriptive statement about morality which corresponds to reality)—but it is not a contradiction to say “It is true that there is no ‘moral’ truth” (a real fulfilled ought) (unless there certainly is one, of course).
In sum, usually, and throughout the “Moral realism and our rights and liberties” series, ‘moral truth’ means ‘a real fulfilled ought’. It does not mean, of course, a particularly praiseworthy truth. And as for “What is ‘immoral’ truth?” – that would be a descriptive statement about immorality which corresponds to reality (however, it would not correspond to the unchanging, eternal aspect of reality which is the fulfilled ought, because that would be a contradiction--evil is the privation, not opposite, of a preexistent good which can never be evil).
Moral realism and our rights and liberties, part 1
Moral realism and our rights and liberties, part 2
Moral realism and our rights and liberties, part 3
Apologetics: Because the unexamined life is not worth living
Turlock City Council in struggle between free expression and establishment of religion
Personal testimony series: The reason for hope-- get your story told
The reason for hope: One woman's bravely told story of forgiveness
More...
- Ichthus's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Ichthus
still on your search? I wish you well. I will not end at 30 and if a Christian the morality of Plato and Socrates are somehow moot follwoing Christ's upheaval of te then "status quo."
The Summa which we touched on mentions both in passing. There are those in each generation that are its voice. Plato and Socrates were great what of Diogenes, the man in search of an honest man, does that not trump his contemporaries? We are in a time of uncertainties.
Have you read the Divine Comedy, not a light read but an poetic and picturesque view of a 14th Century Christian, Dante.
My daughters close foiend was to have birth t her first child, I surprised her with a short hello it had been literally years...I asked her how she had done in Philosophy 101, she dropped it back in 2001 while i attempted to explain that like math there wre ceratinties you had to accept and build upon, and while difficult to understand at then 21 it's as frustrating if not more so now as we see ourselves so more enlighltened. I was amazed at the recent findings in the Gallapogos and discoveries of animals in the rain forestswhich are new.
I am taken by your committment that you and sspouse have taken. I would ask you attend a Catolic Mass and think of themajesty of the one of seven sacraments we have in our practice of faith. I agan suggest a 20th century mystic Thomas Merton, a prolific writer. If no other book but Seven Storrey Mountain an eloquent journey and the manner in which this man came to my faith may serve you well, if not convert you enlighten you to one of the Greatest Religions. the One Christian Belief that transcends 2000 years.
May Christ guide you in this journey and enrich your marriage.
what is immoral truth?
can there be any truth but that which is moral?
right ON, Joe
Joe and LSK, on moral truth.
It is "true" that there can be no evil without a preexistent good, as mentioned at the end of the article. If you were to argue that nothing would (reality would not) exist without a preexistent--and if you were to identify that preexistent with the preexistent good--then it is true that truth (that which corresponds to reality) cannot exist without a preexistent good. However, it is neither moral nor immoral that there is truth--that a fact corresponds to reality (whether or not that reality is moral, immoral, or amoral)--and, such facts/truths are not a person--a repeated theme here. However--the ultimate reality--the preexistent good--that is and must be a Person, if there is a real good (love is not possible if one is not a person).
LSK--on life being sacred (or good)...that doesn't stop at natural death...you don't need to add "to natural death" to make your point a good one. And one might argue your point begs the question, "Why is life sacred (or good)?" -- in such a way that only humans are usually considered under the category "life". It is about love (God). So--it is immoral to take a life, because it is not done out of love (Golden Rule). However--there are times when taking a life is done out of love, and is not considered murder. The "good" is love--that is why it is more loving to save a life, than to tell the truth to a would-be murderer--whereas Kant would have said "don't lie". According to the Golden Rule, which acknowledges the common essence of self and other, if you were the would-be murderer, but in your right mind (paradoxically), you would want someone to protect the victim and not tell you the truth of their location. Similarly, protecting the lives of innocent people is more loving than protecting the lives of those who are threatening the lives of innocent people. According to the Golden Rule, if you were them, and in your right mind, paradoxically, you would want the innocent lives to be protected, even at the cost of your own life. Because it is about love.
Ichtus
Evil is the absence of good, truth does not necessarily equate to good as not all truth are "good" ie the truth of evil, the truth of the Holocaust which came first matters not
unless
one looks at the idea that evil is the result of a choice, exists but is PERMITTED to exist - then the question would be, why would Truth allow evil to exist?
And I understand what you are saying, Ichtus, regarding 'natural death' - I use that term because I believe that laws imposed by man only govern humans from conception to natural death.