Define Morality?

Ah yes, the age old battle of who gets to choose what is moral and what is not. This was a response to a post made on the FredTalk chatboards:

Hitler thought it was moral to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs. Stalin thought it was moral to exterminate. . . well, anyone. John Paul II believes it is moral to preach against abortion. G.W. Bush thinks it is moral to take out Saddam Hussein. Certain liberals believe that it was moral to leave millions of Iraqis under a brutal dictatorship. Were these “moral” people performing moral acts? To their followers, they certainly were.

So where is the benchmark? Most people make the age-old mistake of confusing morals with ethics, but if all morality becomes is whatever is acceptable to society, then what is really moral?

In a world where might makes right, there is no morality because laws are dictated by those with the most power – positivism. That is most certainly not a moral position.

The only benchmark for morality is that which is perfect, which is why morality is properly the realm of religion and God. Laws therefore should always reflect the moral law, which is why there can never be a true separation of religion and lawmaking (church and state if you prefer).

Moral values are independent only in the sense that something other than ourselves have imposed them. In other words, it is an expression of the natural law.

For more, read some of the following:

https://shaunkenney.com/catholic_natural_law.htm

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

Let’s see if it has an effect.