Neo-moral issues, is there such a thing?
The question of how a person should act has been asked ever since man started using his reason and intellect. Moral issues, if scrutinized, have been the same for as long as man can remember.
Whatever moral issue I put in this homework won’t be new, it will be as old as time, for there are no neo-moral issues, each generation just recycles and digs what dirt his forefathers buried.
Let me elaborate.
Stem cell research, if scrutinized, is abortion.
The Human Genome Project is body modification and mutilation.
If we look at the basis why certain issues are considered immoral, we will find that all of our moral issues today are based on these foundations. Nothing is new, it’s just modified.
So the problem is not with having “new” issues, but with why we recycle, modify and complicate the past mistakes the generation before us did.
We can say that technology and pursuit of education may be the “neo” issue of our times (though this issue is still as old as time for education and technology). Definitions and meanings become blurred as our pursuit to become educated intensifies. Education in itself is not bad, but the definitions and the things that we learn in our formal and informal years of studying mold and modify the way we perceive moral issues. The word “success” is a good example. We learned formally and informally that to be successful is to be rich (rich is different from prosperity, rich means having lots of cash, prosperous or prosperity means being wealthy). That blurred definition alone makes us perceive that we must do ANYTHING in order to have money, whether what we do is moral or immoral.
Before, dirtying the name of an officemate was considered immoral, now it’s considered as being smart; chivalry is now dead because women won’t consider men who treat them with respect (respect nowadays is so blurred that I’m having a hard time explaining it); promiscuity was considered immoral before, but now it’s just having “FUN”. The list goes on when it comes to misconceptions to what words really mean. How we stop this, I don’t know, for language evolves as fast as the day turns into night.
So, Mr. Motol, I don’t think there are new moral issues to be considered. We just have to evolve with it in order for us to stay moral.
(Another homework of mine for my Philosophy class)
Filed under: philosophical
Hmmm…stem cell research if I remember correctly makes use of the placenta which upon giving birth is normally discarded – that being it has no further use in a child’s development. In regards to success, chivalry and morality in general, what you have mentioned are basically your suppositions about the world in general. What you perceive colours your world and it may or may not be true. What I can say though is that if that is how your perception is about everything and everyone else – most definitely that will be the world that you are currently living in. It is easy to be pessimistic and relegate everything outside yourself as questionable – without having to assess yourself on why you came to such and such conclusions. There is a difference between truly assessing a situation for what it is and seeing things based upon your own perception. This is something you’ll need to figure out for yourself. Arbitrarily judging something is easy enough but to seek out what is the actual truth of the matter takes far more discernment and is always difficult in the undertaking. Morality itself is relative to time, place, and culture and while indeed it is as old as civilization it is culturally specific. You cannot adopt the imperial stance that all things can be judged from our standards and our epoch’s point of view and claim that every issue as being the same no matter what the circumstance. Different times, different points of morality.
Morality comes from God.
Any conception of a “new moral order” and of “new moral issues” is relativism. People instead of adhering to God’s will, make God adhere to their own will.
This is one of the reasons that gave rise to Protestantism.
Ah… Mirster J. Gonzalez is clearly a victim of subjectivism and relativism that obscures even the most basic truths about the world. The loss of the sense of good and evil is at play. The only essential thing to do is to simplify: Morality since time immemorial has dictated that people should not take away lives. Amidst all the confusion wrought by science and its “complexities”, it is still immoral to kill, mutilate, or whatever euphemisms they substitute for these.
The point being driven at is the fallacy of the creation of new moral issues, when the only thing actually evolving is language, on which reason is not contingent. There can only be one truth, (for the existence of many truths is self-defeating and contradictory) and any one thing cannot be made true or false by virtue of consensus. This is what is being put forward by Mr. J. Gonzalez, that truth is a social construct. Which is synonymous to saying morality is a social construct, and consequently, God, is a social construct. Shame.
Peace brother. I never brought God into the picture. I think Pitasyo you were alarmed with my first two sentences more than anything else and misconstrued the rest. I’m not one for moral dictates and telling people what to do however and I’m a firm believer in democracy. Between you and me and the internet- I think, you are the one making use of semantics more than I am. What makes you say one thing is truer than the other? What is your truth? How do you know it’s true? From what I read in your replies – your truth is firmly entrenched in one concept only – A Judeo-Christian God – which mind you – not everyone shares. Whether you deny it or not, your truth is exclusivist and makes no apologies for making no room for other beliefs. Does that make me a moral relativist? To an extent yes and I’m not ashamed to say that I am. I believe in consensus and peaceable dialogue which only comes forth from allowing oneself to relinquish an adamant stance and letting the other party to speak their minds. Between an ideal and people, I do not lose sight of a very important principle – ideals are meant to serve people. Take it any way you want. Also you are greatly mistaken that moral relativism brought about Protestantism. Is this what they teach you at UST? Frankly – Martin Luther posted his famous 95 thesis not as a by product of moral relativism as you allege but on another moral issue – corruption in the Catholic Church which even the Church hierarchy admits to as true – hence the counter-reformation and to this day, euphemisms on Church indiscretions. I find it also a serious conceit on your part to use God to impress upon others your morally conservative stance. What human being can believe himself to be so wise as to be knowledgeable of absolute truth – let alone the mind of an inscrutable deity. Is this knowledge of yours based on scripture that is written by human beings as flawed as you or me? Or is this based on the legalism and teachings of a church hierarchy that is equally flawed and to be honest – guilty of the very sins they condemn. On the other hand, Stem cell research and the human genome project are morally complex issues but outright denying the benefits such research could yield to the great majority of mankind is insanity. Perhaps it is easy for one such as you to condemn the research work as abhorrent – you who sits comfortably in your home, taking an education from one of the country’s premier educational institutions and while you may be suffering from the minor nuisances that comes with a daily commute and so-called middle class living in this country is still relatively better off compared to – say – children suffering from genetic diseases, people who suffer from AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, cancer and whatever malaise known to mankind – which mind you, could be potentially cured by such research. It is easy to dismiss such work as against the will of God but the real work of God is seen in uplifting the conditions of our fellow men – exactly the intention of those scientists you dismiss. I am not outright saying that we should support the current methodologies of this research work but we cannot dismiss nor deny the potential gain for the rest of humanity. I’d like to find out if we can go about such work without making such sacrifices or if not, we must weigh the real benefits and pitfalls that such knowledge brings. You claim I suffer from moral relativism, well you sir suffer from intolerance and zealotry which to my mind is the real shame. To simply claim that moral issues can be simplified and be judged by adherence to God’s will –simply will not do. “New” moral order, “old” moral order – that is truly empty language. Every society faces their particular social issues and will have to judge their great debates with the knowledge and the tools available to them and it is only through dialogue and consensus that we can peaceably work towards betterment. Or perhaps you would like to say that is flawed because not everything can be answered by consensus. There are truths but since everyone has a particular claim to their truths, sad to say, statements such as yours are what fuels the fires of today’s hatreds the world over. Again, I will say that there are many truths in this world and each one must be explored, not only for veracity but for the enrichment it brings upon one’s person – the idea that searching for the different truths brings about a sense of completion and closeness with the deity. I’ll you this question – what is your truth?
Well, here lies the trench.
If one believes the Truth, and believes it is the Truth, then there is no compromise. I am sorry if you are offended but I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. YES, THAT is what they teach us in The Royal and Pontifical. The fullness of Truth has been revealed to this Church.
The end will never justify the means, because God can never adhere to such immoral actions; He cannot contradict Himself.
The cleavage at this point is the loss of God in political philosophy, which is what I perceive in yours.
Yes, that is exactly using our free will — democracy.
Democracy, ah yes, the vehicle of moral and political freedom.
O great Jupiter! Lady Venus! I thank thee for granting wisdom to your polytheistic children, our ancestors.
In Zeus we live, In Zeus we move, In Zeus we have our living!
Namaste.
To Pitasyo:
That is quite an assumption to make. The loss of God in my political philosophy? I’m rather surprised that a Catholic university such as UST has taken a hard line stance in this day and age – particularly that our history and society is so deeply entrenched in the actions of the past. While obviously you are a very religious man, I hardly think it is wise to mix God and politics. The adage “To Caesar what is Caesar and To Christ what is Christ’s” works both ways and for good reason. You furthermore make it sound as if the so-called one true and Catholic Church has monopoly over truth and morality but such is not the case. In our own country alone, the Catholic Church has much to answer for. Of course it is futile to argue at this point because this argument highlights our core beliefs regarding human life, political philosophy and even history. I would like to highlight again though that in regards to an issue – say Stem Cell research – while there are things that I may not agree on I definitely believe that the merits of the research deserve more than just dismissing it as immoral and contradictory to God’s will. This brings to the fore two divergent schools of thoughts – on one side, you claim it to be immoral, a mutilation of the human body – an act that is wholly unworthy in the eyes of God where as I would look and further develop such research under the belief that it aims to uplift and lessen the day to day suffering of our fellow human beings. Again I note that the research is dismissed on your part from the stand point of comfortable, intellectual debate. The truth of the matter is – many people are suffering and they need to be looked after and be helped – the more ungodly act would be to deny either the exploration of a solution or deny them wholesale the means to uplift their existence. Again you seem to claim to know the inner workings of God’s mind – I find that incredibly arrogant. Two thousand years of Church legalism and scholasticism has as much claim to Godly acts and purity as say the next man on the street. I would venture to say that those same two thousand years has shown more avarice and discord than acts of actual charity and goodness. What you have is faith but you cannot expect that to work in the political sphere where so many lives are at stake. You have a personal moral and religious compass – that is commendable. However you cannot expect that everyone shares your zeal in the matter and when questioned on the pros and cons of your view fall on the argument that such and such acts are against God’s will to cement your points. Moreover, such a standpoint when you strip it down to the bare essentials sounds little better than that of an extremist.
I have already recgonized the cleavage where our standpoint differs. I rest my case. Anything further than this is well, nothing more than intellectual vanity.
You are very intelligent, sir.
bow.