Son of a b....
You know? I really didn't try to give you a RC argument. I haven't been a real part of the church for many years. I think 20 or more. I was attempting to be as neutral as I could.
I actually was trying to tell you there is morality. It's based in beliefs. If you don't believe in a perfect being, you can't believe in morality. It's true none of us is perfectly moral. If we don't believe in perfect morality, how can we believe in moraity at all?
So, my conclusion was that none of us is moral for that reason.
One, those who don't have any beliefs can't be moral. They might use some other word, but it can't be morality.
Two, those who believe cannot be moral either, because only a perfect being can be moral. Those who believe can only aspire to those perfectly moral standards.
I think Married Dude gave a good example. Is it moral to go and kill, mame and destroy for a president? I think it's a job. Those who do it, I do not envy, but I am grateful for having to protect me and my country.
But, when have we been in jeopardy of losing our country to another power in a violent manner? I'm sure it's been around 75+ years. All the rest of the attempts that held any weight have been from within and/or in a nonviolent way.
Is it moral to destroy a country or someone with nonviolent means? I guess that's another thread?
Thanks for starting this thread. It has been interesting and thought provoking.
Lol, I actually agree with a lot of your post. I just thought that was an interesting similarity to the RCC’s position… Morality must come from a higher authority, not mere reason… men, although capable of doing moral things, are tainted by Original Sin (or the concept that they have a tendency to sin or otherwise do immoral things) and this, along with free will, means that we are bound to do wrong.
I’m glad you’re enjoying the thread. This is something I have a deep interest in, and it helps me to understand other commenters here on a much more fundamental level.
As to your questions and @MarriedDude
's excellent points about the morality of war, of soldiery, of non-violent destruction… I’d say yes, they are inherently immoral, but because we don’t live in a perfect world, we will have to act, sometimes, in immoral ways, and pay the price of it. Prudence, and necessity, sometimes mean that our nature will trump morality.
Is it immoral to take a man’s life? Certainly. Is it always unjustified? That’s a lot murkier. Is it more immoral to let a murderer kill your children, and to flee, or to fight back, and potentially kill him? Because decisions never happen in a vacuum, we can find ourselves looking at decisions that are horrible, where there is no morally right option, only the least immoral option, or even merely the most expedient.
To me, there is something beautiful in the struggle to be moral, to try to do right, despite our nature and our impulses, despite what is easy and expedient. To know you will fail, but to charge that hill anyways, and to try to learn from those failings.