Absolute Moral Norms
Do good, avoid evil is applicable in your specific situation since it is written in general terms. From it, you just have to deduce applicable good norms for your circumstances. And although there are so many new things that come our way that even the deduced moral norms seems no longer applicable, still, we should trust in the power of human reason that truth is knowable according to St. John Paul II. Thomism will also explain to us that the universals are inside our brain. What!? Yes, and because universals came from the particulars, they can be applied back to the particulars. The general principle of ethics above is absolute and other norms can be absolutized like "It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent person." -ChatGPT-4o, 6 August 2025
How about the psychological observation that some high IQ children become dumb adults and a norm that they should not be afraid of failures to stop that from happening?
You're right! It's too particularized already that it seems it's not applicable to your own situations anymore.
Let's just say you excelled intellectually during elementary, not in high school, and then again during your college days. Maybe you don't have that real smartness after all that makes those really smart people prone to such a loophole. Maybe you're really smart, but resigned from your job that doesn't align with what is morally good anymore and was therefore blacklisted. Looking for a job, you acquired a terminal illness, marriage was forestalled, died with a lot of debt in the hospital ward.
Now you're right again that this smart one cannot be categorized with that high-IQ-child-dumb-adult thing since it's not fear of failure that seemingly made him a dumb adult, but a choice for what is good that made him at odds with the evil system he chose not to take part in.
The specified psychological observation and norm will indeed appeal to those who are in that situation only. Converting it to a moral norm statement sounds nothing general too: "Smart people should not be afraid to fail to forestal becoming dumb adults." Now you see why we cannot really create norms for the public that is so very specific that it cannot be applied to many particular situation. Such is already the work of consciences. That is why educating and forming consciences is so important since not all of God's law and man's law can be specified to everyone's particular situation and written normatively into public laws. AI might be able to do so by now. Only that individuals should know how to ask about their specific imbroglio, which imply that individuals still need to have the basics of an educated and formed consciences likewise.
On the other hand, absolutizing "Do not kill" will make self-defense invalid. Somehow moral norms became one due to being generalized as time passed by and its the gist of what people should actually do. Only time can tell whether some psychological observations become moral norms like gadget glare rest at least in general if not the 20-20-20 rule.
So what? Should we not absolutize moral norms? Some moral norms points towards avoiding intrinsic evil like abortion, rape, etc. that there is no possible exception and exemption that it becomes really absolutized. You say there are specific situations where only abortion can save the life of the mother. But with advancement of prenatal care, a possible 50% chance of survival for the mother can be embraced rather than abort the baby. A rape victim can be taken care of an organization funds and all, give birth to the child for adoption, rather than abort it. Abortion is indeed an intrinsic evil and is actually absolutized because it is:
Universal (valid everywhere),
Necessary (applying in all situations), and
Unchangeable (not subject to exceptions or development). -ChatGPT-4o, 6 August 2025
However, some laws and norms can actually change for the better, which somewhat tells us why we're not absolutizing some laws. "Before the 20th century the Church strictly denied funeral rights and burial in consecrated ground for those who took their own lives, assuming they have full knowledge and consent... However, with the Church's evolving understanding of mental health this restriction has largely disappeared today." -ChatGPT-4o, 30 March 2025
If only there was electronics engineering course in our town during my time, I should have been one and not languisihing in low-wage jobs today. Today, the course is available in our town but I am now old.😡🤣 So time does change some particular things. They are factual and circumstantial truths. But the more general a moral statement is, the more it becomes perennial like the statement "Do good, avoid evil," "It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent person," and "Abortion is always an intrinsically evil act."
The law I am reflecting with is too vague for my specific situation! Yes, that is what I want you to realize. You need reflection, and ultimately God's leading hand via prayer, if rules and laws somewhat doesn't apply to your particular situations anymore. Becoming a good person does end in death though. And we will be judged accordingly. But as long as one is alive, no matter how complicated one's life situation is, surrendering the fight to know and live in the truth is not an option. We can rest for a while, but embracing the temptation that knowing what is good for me here and now is impossible, is surrendering your God given talent and the assurance of Jesus that truth is knowable. Be it truths that are absolute, general, deduced, particularized, changed. Even absolute truths though like -1 + -1 = -2 as a simple truth easy to grasp since it is fixed and doesn't change, becomes not so easy to understand and be accepted by an individual who lacks education in math. A consciense which lacks moral education might just be tackling inaptitude and not inadequacy of the universals, which is more often the case.
There's a basis for everything though. Think of it this way like when there is no more absolute value. What happens if humanity just randomly changed 1+1=2 to 1+1=3 without any basis. Much worse than that if humanity will just change any truth according to one's whims and caprices. Consider traffic rule changing from time to time without any basis. Maybe that is why God commanded that one shall not bear false witness where telling the truth comes from. Sworn factual truths can incacerate innocent individuals, and wreak havoc to so many lives.
Ok so there are absolute truths. But not all truths are absolute though. Then there are moral norms. There are psychological observations, perennial truths, scientific (material) truths, cultural norms, etc. We give them the degree of respect due them. And more importantly, we just dont change them for no reason at all.
But simply, there are truths out there which will stand the test of time.
We don't know then what truths will phenomenology help us expound further, for the education of consciense, for self-evident acceptance of universals one can't easily decipher or accept, and lastly if it is carefully reflected upon, the addition to universals of new realizations and novel situations.
So: even if a norm is “objectively right” or "absolutely binding," its moral value is only fully realized when it is freely, consciously embraced — not just blindly followed.
Here’s the heart of it: Universals illuminate the general direction, but not always the particular path.
This is not a failure of the universals; it’s the incompleteness of abstract law when applied to singular, concrete, complex human realities.
What then guides the person: Conscience
Now the person must consult conscience, which is not merely knowledge of right and wrong but the application of moral truth to a concrete act here and now.
Conscience becomes the bridge between the universal and the particular.
But conscience works in two ways:
Synderesis: the habitual knowledge of basic moral principles (the storehouse of universals).
Conscientia: the act of judgment in a specific case (applying those principles to here and now).
Your question suggests that synderesis alone isn’t enough, and that is correct. Knowing “do good, avoid evil” is insufficient when the “good” is unclear or competing goods are involved.
Discernment: beyond applying a law
In these cases, what’s needed is discernment, not just deduction.
Discernment includes:
Attending to inner movements of the soul (peace, disturbance, fear, attraction).
Listening to grace, not just reason.
Waiting in humility when clarity is not yet given.
Considering the circumstances and intentions, not just the act.
Discernment is a spiritual and existential process, not merely an intellectual one.
So when someone feels:
> “There seems to be no law that fits here.”
They are probably being invited to discern—to enter into the mysterious, living relationship with truth and God, rather than mechanically applying moral formulas.
Summary
Universals guide generally, but not always sufficiently in complex cases.
Synderesis offers moral principles, but cannot fully resolve concrete dilemmas.
Conscience, specifically conscientia, judges particular acts.
In especially unclear situations, discernment is needed—a spiritual process rooted in experience, prayer, virtue, and grace.
Discernment doesn’t cancel law—it fulfills it in the most human way: through a person’s freedom aligned with truth. -ChatGPT-4o, 6 August 2025
Seat of Wisdom, pray for us.
Comments
Post a Comment