Theological Dialogue #20: The "Best" Version of the Truth

 Philosophically, there has been a long standing battle between two types of perfection, two "bests", if you will. Perfection, or that which is labeled the "best", by definition implies that there is nothing better, or nothing more appropriately suited. We see these concepts applied daily to an assortment of things: one can achieve perfect marks on an assessment, or one can perform better than her classmates on any given assignment, and consequently she has done "the best". Now, the latter does not imply that she was perfect, nor does the former imply that she was best. A young woman can score higher than her classmates without achieving a perfect score, but she can also receive a perfect score, one of many, and by consequence not have outperformed her classmates. It is somewhat complicated. And increasingly more so when we seek perfection amongst things that are seemingly a matter of opinion or are far more difficult to measure than the marks on a test. For these reasons, the second notion of perfection was philosophically born. Not perfection or best as it is compared to its opposition, but perfection or best as it stands in the eye of the beholder, a subjective perfection of sorts. Thus we were faced with an entirely different question. Is Stanford the best university, or is it simply the best university for any one individual but not others? Is he the perfect man, or is he simply perfect for her, while not being perfect for anyone else. Navigating these two types of perfection leaves us with an interesting outcome. Either perfection is applicable to all, or one, but either way, it is objective. Perfection still represents a pinnacle, whether it is for the group or the individual. 

But when we begin seeking answers to questions like the ones above, we run into a new philosophical quagmire of sorts. If perfection is in fact in the eye of the beholder than that also means that questions like the ones above have multiple right answers, as they apply to each person specifically, and thus, the truth seems to change with the individual. My wife is the perfect woman for me, and not others, in the way that I hope I am perfect for her, but no one else. Does this line of thinking then suggest that we each have our own truth, and that truth is different for each individual? Well, in some ways, yes, but in other ways, no. It may be true that Stanford is the perfect university for one person and not the other, but that does not mean that Stanford is both the perfect university, and not, simultaneously. Rather, each situation must be looked at individually, and thus, truth applies to each situation separately. Stanford is the perfect university for Steve. Stanford is not the perfect university for Janna. Every account of truth is separate from the one that comes before it, and consequently any that follow. Therefore, there is no such thing as "my truth" or "your truth", there is simply "the truth". And that truth applies to any and all individuals. For this reason we need to allow these concepts to die. Truth is fact and therefore if we allow each individual to establish their own facts, we run the risk of implementing an assortment of problematically subjective issue, including but not limited to appropriate behaviour and morality in general. For this reason it is far more accurate to claim one's "experience" or "opinion" instead of one's "truth", all the while knowing that our experiences or opinions might not be right, while the truth, by definition, always is.

So how do we know this to be the case? Well, if we subject it to a little experimentation, the findings are actually quite interesting. Like perfection, there are two potential approaches to truth: universalism and relativism. The former suggests that truth is universally applicable across time, culture, and each individual. Relativism, on the other hand, asserts that there is no absolute truth. Truth is subject to change from one time period to the next, one culture to the next, and one individual to the next. To better understand this, we take a brief journey into the findings of Einstein and what he referred to as the theory of general relativity. In short, he presented three claims. First, time and space were created/existed simultaneously and thus were subject to the same rules creating what is known as a time/space continuum. Second, as we move through the time/space continuum, our perspective of events changes. And finally, massive objects have the ability to distort or manipulate the time/space continuum. Essentially, the second two points work together to prove the first one, and if we subject the second two points to even the slightest examination, they are easily confirmed. If you are looking up at a commercial airliner flying across the sky, it appears both small and slow. But when watching a private jet take off right in front of you, it appears both big and fast. The reality of the matter though is that the commercial liner is both bigger and faster than that "big"/"fast" private jet. Furthermore, if you are standing on the side of the highway watching cars go by they appear to be traveling quite a bit faster than when you are driving next to them although they are going the same speed. One's location in the time space continuum impacts their perspective on events. However, the manipulation of perspective is not where the theory stops. In fact, Einstein went on to realize that large objects in the time/space continuum could literally impact time and space. For example, if a planet is close enough to a black hole, or for some other reason has a higher gravitation pull than that of earth, time will move more slowly there than it does here. For this reason, we understand the difference in the passage of time between the center of the universe (where gravity is massive) and that of earth to be 1second to 1,000,000,000,000 seconds. In other words, for each second that passes at creation, one million million seconds pass here.

The concept of philosophical relativism has attempted to apply these same rules to the concept of truth. It suggests that truth can change from place to place, or from one individual to the next. It throws away the notion of absolute truth like Einstein would have thrown away the idea of absolute time. However, this is massively problematic. Unlike time and space, truth can not change or be manipulated. Yes, our perspective of truth can be altered, but that doesn't change truth itself. Just because I think something is true or believe it to be true, that doesn't make it true. And this is where relativism loses its footing. Not only does it go against the logical law of non-contradiction (the assertion that two opposing concepts can not both be true in the same time and in the same place) but it is also self-defeating in its nature. Relativism claims that there is not absolute truth, but that in and of itself is an absolute truth... Ultimately, we need to separate truth from our beliefs and not make the mistake that they are one in the same. 

Relativism tricks us into thinking that the path we are following is the right one, simply because we are on it, or what we have come to believe is accurate simply because we are entitled to believe what we want. However, we must learn to reasonably separate these notions. You are entitled to walk the path you have chosen, or to hold the beliefs that you do, but that does not make it the right path or an accurate belief. Relativism cuts short a pursuit that should be continuous. Truth is sometimes elusive and the quest is worth while. 

So this is what we know. You are entitled to your beliefs, perceptions, opinions, and experiences. In fact, it is incredibly important to have and develop those things. But you also need to understand that you are not entitled to force those opinions/beliefs on others, and you also need to understand that those things are separate from the truth. We must be open-minded to the fact that we may be wrong. Now, we may also be right, our opinions and beliefs could be accurate, but simply having them doesn't make them right or true. Truth exists outside of them, and while they may occasionally align, one does not create the other. Allow this image to serve as an example:

On the left we can see you (or us, or whomever) and all the things that you should have:  experiences, opinions, beliefs and experiences. But then we have this giant lightening bolt separating those things from the truth. The truth either is or it isn't (is/isn't) it is not subject to the things you think or believe. 

And that is where we are left philosophically regarding the notion of truth. While we may think something to be true, simply thinking it doesn't make it true. The truth exists outside of us, whether or not we ever find it, but it is still worth seeking.

Theological Dialogue #19: 5 goals, 7 signs, keys to surviving the COVID pandemic

 Yesterday, or sometime in the last couple of weeks, depending on when this essay goes to print, marked the fifth anniversary of one of the most incredible phenomenon that has ever taken place in world futbol. Five years ago, in a game versus Wolfsberg, a player by the name of Robert Lewandowski scored five goals in a matter of nine minutes. His first goal came on his third touch of the game. But this incredible feat is marked by an array of equally fantastic stats. At the time of his first goal, Bayern was trailing one to zero. He had recently been subbed into the game. Over the course of nine minutes, three of the five goals were scored with a single touch. He hit the post once, the goal keeper once, and put one in the back of the net. That all took place in a matter of seconds. His second goal was shot from almost 30 yards out. His fourth was a half volley. His fifth was a full volley. On his fifth goal, the goal keeper didn't even move. The game ended 5-1. Wolfsberg: one, Lewandowski: five. If you you have not seen the highlights from this event, I highly recommend them: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRZFvSPJBzU

My favorite comment that followed was this: "Geez, you go to the bathroom and you miss every goal he scored..."

I tell you all this because today's conversation is about the concept of momentum. Over the course of nine minutes, Lewandowski accumulated so much momentum that one could surmise that near the end of his run, he couldn't go anything but score. It was as if everything he touched turned to gold. The final goal, the most brilliant, and most audacious of them all, is nothing short of miraculous. It is inexplicable by all measures save the fact that those nine minutes rose to a crescendo of glory that could only be culminated in something superhuman. In other words, his momentum had carried him well beyond the feats of normal futbol. It had carried him into a moment of transcendence; it had carried him into "the zone". 

But this is how momentum works. A car that is rolling is easier to push. An idea that gains steam is easier to make manifest. Starting something from nothing is difficult (if even possible), but developing something that has already begun is a far easier task. And this is true both mentally and physically. Each a necessary component of development.

If we return to that final goal: Lewandowski is not a boy who has just wondered in out of the school yard. He is a trained professional with years of hard work to his name. But in that regard, he is a dime a dozen. No one goes pro without the investment of decades of hard work. But this moment is unique. Something transpires that can't be explained by his dedication and effort. This moment builds upon itself into something truly unique. It becomes something that we might never witness again. And the goals prove it. The first two are a little lucky. (Right time, right place, left corner) The third is gritty. And the last two are simply perfect. Why? Well because with a little luck and a little grit comes a great deal of confidence. All doubts pushed aside, in the final moments of this run, we can only assume that Lewandowsky simply thought that he couldn't do anything but score (if he thought at all. It might have been a moment of pure clarity...) 

This is why momentum is important: in big moments you have the confidence and the energy to achieve greatness.

Although this next series of events is not necessarily comparable, and in no way am I trying to equate one to the other, each fascinatingly follows a similar principle. 

In the Gospel of John, Jesus performs seven miracles, or executes seven signs, designed to reveal to those who can see that He is the Christ. The nature of these signs are interesting in their development as they mirror the courage and audacity with which Christ approaches His ministry. If we start from the beginning, we first see Christ at a wedding with His buddies, somewhat reluctantly adhering to Mary's request to deal with the fact that the host has run out of wine. Probably quite differently from Lewandowski's first goal, Jesus knows this moment is coming. Furthermore, there is hesitation to kick start what He knows will become an inevitable momentum leading toward His eventual sacrifice. Nonetheless, He recognizes that the moment has arrived and He proceeds accordingly. The next two signs are signs of healing, and they are subtle in their manner. He heals the son of a Roman official (someone He knows isn't going to run off and tell everyone that Jesus is the Christ) and He heals the man near the baths (a somewhat more risky prospect, but one that can easily be explained away by the previous healing nature of the baths, and the credibility of the one healed.) But as the signs develop, so does the momentum, and so does Jesus' willingness to stand out. So much so that He later multiplies the loaves, walks on water, and challenges the very foundation of Jewish thought. (The bread of life discourse). And it doesn't end there. He performs another healing. Only this time, He heals the eyes of a blind man that He knows will be brought before the Sanhedrin, and culminates these miracles with the raising of Lazarus from the dead. A sign that foreshadows His own resurrection, but also one that confirms its possibility.  

As noted, the theme here ultimately remains the same: The Gospel of John demonstrates the momentum that builds toward the passion. Over time, Jesus reveals Himself to be the messiah, but He also amasses the confidence that allows Him to do what needs to be done. We have to believe that Jesus was free in the moments that led up to His death, and therefore we have to acknowledge that He could have walked away. He was not required to sacrifice Himself. If that had been the case, then it would have not been an act of love. Love requires freewill. And thus, the Gospel of John is also a story of momentum. Jesus is prepared for the moment in which He would have to carry His cross up the Mountain of the Skull because His courage and His faith assured Him that He was ready. There was no turning back, but not because He couldn't but rather because He had established Himself in the task at hand. In that moment, it was as if He could not do anything else but save us. 

As we charge through this global pandemic, I believe that there is something to learn from all of this. Though 2020 has been a roller coaster, and amidst the ups and downs it has been difficult to generate momentum, we can not stop trying. Momentum has become essential to our survival. It is absolutely necessary that we find something that helps us to move forward. We need to establish a goal (a measurable one) and we need to commit to it daily, hitting checkpoints along the way. Lewandowsky did not waste those nine minutes. He built them into greatness. And Christ did not waste those years of His ministry. He changed the world with them. And in the same way, we can not waste this time. Eventually, this will be over, and we will move on, and we must have something to show for it. Something that prepares us for whatever is coming next. Something that assures us that when the moment comes, we will not do anything but persevere. So set a goal. Dedicate yourself to a task. Use this time to push forward so that you can know you will look back having accomplished something spectacular.  

Theological Dialogue #18: A new look at the same old commandments

As we noted in the previous blog, laws play a significant role in our development toward the people that God desired for us to be. In other words, the law takes nature where nature wants to go... most of the time. This was particularly true for the Israelites, God's chosen people. They received an assortment of commandments, some written, some communicated orally, some inscribed on tablets, destroyed, and others inscribed on more tablets; roughly 613 total. And a lot of these commandments were weird. You couldn't wear clothing of mixed material, eat grapes skins, plant different seeds in the same field.. odd stuff like that. But with we understand this smorgasbord of laws in the context that they were given to Israel, we come to realize that they weren't actually a smorgasbord at all. They all served a very specific purpose. They were designed to set the Israelites apart so that they could remain in relationship with God and avoid going astray. The tribes that surrounded them had their own variety of peculiar behaviours, and we all know what happens when we hang out with people with face tatoos... ideologies are soon to follow.

None of these laws were more prominent however than the decalogue or the ten commandments. The commandments given to Moses were designed to set the Israelites up for ultimate success. If they could abide by these commandments, both literally and thematically, they would not be led astray. So takes a look at what exactly these laws were, and how they were designed to set them, and ultimately us, apart.

Commandment one: No other gods.

This commandment is the first commandment, and thematically, it is the commandment of love. Love the Lord your God, love your neighbor as yourself, love, love, love. And it is no surprise that this one is first. Jesus tells us: "If you love me, you will follow my commands". It is pretty easy, love and then follow because you love. Therefore, this commandment comes first because if we don't love, we won't follow, but if we do, we are more likely to buy into the rest. However, there is another part of this commandment that cannot be overlooked. It is the "only one God" clause. This serves the purpose of eliminating any conflict when it comes to who to follow. Nothing can be more difficult than navigating authorities that are telling you to do different things, and thus, God does away with it all together. He says, follow Him, don't follow anyone else, unless they are preaching the same thing. Because then, they too, are following Him. That's why this commandment speaks out against tarot cards, magic, seances, and stuff like that. We have to be weary of making ourselves vulnerable to other masters... worldly and otherwise.

Commandment two: Don't use the Lord's name in vain.

This commandment is rather straight forward. Don't curse the name. Don't lie with the name. Don't claim to know what God will do. That kind of thing. This commandment is all about proceeding respectfully toward the Lord, which is a key to understanding the relationship we are meant to have with Him. It should be intimate while simultaneously filling us with awe.

Commandment three: Keep holy the sabbath.

This commandment does not mean that we always have to attend church (there are extenuating circumstances), it does not mean that only Christians can have a relationship with God, and it certainly doesn't mean you can't do anything on Sundays... What it does mean is that we are meant to take time to build our relationship with God. And we should also be willing to make sacrifices for that relationship. That is a sign that it is genuine and that we are grateful for it.

These three commandments come together to create the theological principles. They govern what Christians are meant to believe: that there is only one God, that He is deserving of our respect, and that we are meant to be in relationship with Him. If we cling to these understandings, the rest of the commandments become quite simple. Love Him, and we will treat His creation with love as well. The brilliance of this lies in the fact that God knows us so well. We are loyal to those we respect and with whom we share relationship. For them, we will do anything.

The commandments that follow are known as the moral principles (what we should do).

Commandment four: Honor your mother and father and you'll get the land (i.e. heaven).

This commandment illustrates the importance of adhering to authority while also establishing that there is a reward for doing so. But not in the sense of a prize, but rather in the way that there are natural rewards for doing the good. (If you don't drink under age, you don't get MIPs) In the same way, following the commands leads you to holiness, heaven, and a relationship with God.

Commandment five: Don't kill (or more accurately, treat everyone with dignity.)

This commandment centers around dignity. It is the foundational notion of no harm to self or others. It covers all kinds of death, drug use, and the killing of things physically, metaphysically, emotionally, and otherwise. The importance of the commandment lies in the fact that if we can treat others with dignity (an ourselves) we will never find ourselves in violation of the commandments that follow.

Commandment Six: Do not commit adultery (or do anything else sexually immoral...)

This is a big commandment that covers all manners of activity; however, the key to it lies in its requirement for self control. It does not call for celibacy, it calls for chastity, and these are very different concepts. Everyone is called to chastity (married, unmarried, priests, etc.) because everyone is called to be in control of their sexual urges and exploits. And this self control then helps going forward. Self mastery not only leads to a healthy sex life, but it also helps us to control our envy and desire, the issues that lie at the root of subsequent commandments.

Commandment seven: don't steal

Anything. Intellectual property. Physical property. Someone's dignity.

However, feel free to own property, own things, borrow things, just be clear what your are doing and do it.

Commandment eight: don't bear false witness

Essentially, do not defamate  another's character through the telling of lies, rumors, or the keeping of secrets. Avoid the gossip. But do know that this doesn't mean the fifth amendment is nullified, the seal of confession still holds, and you are allowed to keep the secret ingredients in grandma's salsa a secret ;). This one is complicated - but it is made easier when we pursue the truth, when we provide the truth, and when we don't with hold it from others. At least not those who are entitled to it. (That is a way more complicated conversation than what we have time for though, so feel free to follow up.

Commandment nine and ten: don't covet your neighbors wife and stuff.

In other words, be happy with the life you've been given. Trust God, love Him, and you won't want for anything more. Which brings us full circle. Find the love, establish the relationship and the happiness will follow because so will the natural law and eventually your purpose.

If only it were that easy though. Follow the law, be happy, the end. However, the problem lies in how we fulfill this law of love in our lives today. Which is a task easier said than done.

But that is where the beatitudes come in to play. In the very etymology of the word, the beatitudes suggest that we must learn to "be of a certain attitude". And what exactly is that attitude? Well one in which we recognize a need for God in our lives. We need to become poor in spirit. This is both the first and "most important" beatitude in that our recognition of a need for God will lay the ground work for everything else to come. We will mourn for the state of the world as it is, we will feel powerless in our ability to change it, we will then hunger for righteousness, become more merciful, patient, and moral in the process, and then eventually we will seek to change the world. And what will be our reward? Well ultimately the kingdom of heaven, but here, in this world, we will be persecuted. You see, that is the key to understanding the beatitudes. The poor in spirit are the mourning, they are the peacemakers, they are the persecuted.

But that is the way of life, those who seek the truth are challenged for it. Those who seek to align themselves with the objective good are bullied, marginalized and ostracized. But there is blessing in that. How do you know you're on the right track? Someone is probably trying to steer you off...

Theological Dialogue #17: It's the law ;)

For all intents and purposes, there has always been law.

However, that idea is slightly complicated. There has always been eternal law. There has always been a natural law. We know this to be the case because these laws have existed as long as God has existed... always.

As for the nature of civil law, we have reason to believe that as long as there has been society, there has been law. In the 22nd century humanity makes its first conditional laws (If you do this, then this will happen...) and from that point forward we see an assortment of laws emerge: Hammurabi's code, the Torah, laws of various republics and tribes, constitutions and religious laws, the list is endless. But it does leave us with one conclusion: all societies make/create/abide by laws.

That isn't actually the starting place though. To best understand why you abide by civil laws every day, you first need to understand the goal (the telos) behind establishing laws. In the book of Jeremiah, we are introduced to the concept that God "knows us" and "appoints us" before He forms us in the womb. This has massive implications. The idea of us is as infinite as God is infinite. In other words, we have, at least in concept, always existed. That's remarkable. And furthermore, there is an eternal law meant to govern what we could become if we pursue the best version of ourselves. However, we are free to choose whether or not we abide. We are free to choose whether or not we accept this appointment.

But if we do, we are called to listen to our hearts (the place where the natural law resides) that it might guide us toward our eternal/divine plan.

The problem is this: the world is often too loud for us to hear anything. We walk around with head phones in our ears, we are constantly staring at screens, we spend very little time listening. And it is for this reason that every society institutes laws designed to help us "hear better" or more accurately, to guide us toward the natural law. The struggle comes when we are then forced to navigate civil laws in light of what is lawfully permissible vs. what is moral. The two are not one in the same. You have to remember that civil laws are ultimately there to regulate behaviour, and keep civilization afloat. However, they simultaneously have to refrain from being too strict or they run the risk of inciting  revolution. That is why we see this interesting balance in regard to how most laws appear moral, but others are questionable at best, yet all are instituted. If society feels as if they played a role in the choosing of the laws and if they feel like those laws protect them without inhibiting too many of their freedoms, they remain content with the system as it is.

This becomes tricky as we attempt to evolve beyond the 4th stage of moral development. At some point, we have to learn to see the law for what it is and understand that while it has the ability to guide us to the natural law, simply following it to the tee will not provide the desired outcome. Philosophically however, there is a way to navigate this quagmire and determine which laws are just, and which laws demand a reaction of civil disobedience. The defining characteristics of a just law are quite simple in their nature. In order to be just, a law must follow an ordinance of reason (it must be reasonable/make sense) it must be directed toward the benefit of the common good, not simply the powerful majority, it must be established by a proper authority, and it must be promulgated (made known). Every law should be subject to this scrutiny in the respective order. If a law is unreasonable, it is unjust, and thus should be resisted. And in the same way, if a law seems reasonable, but it only benefits the few, then it too should be resisted. It should be resisted nonviolently; we should never justify immoral behaviour simply because it is lawfully permitted. (Remember slavery...)

Ultimately, we should strive to be the best version of ourselves, seek holiness, and quest to discover what God's divine (eternal) law has in store for us. But if we are going to do this, we must learn to listen to our heart, and critically look at what society is asking from us or what it is permitting us to do, and determine whether or not those things are in alignment with the objective good. Once we can begin to work our way through the labyrinth of societies demands, we are sure to discover what it is that God has in store for us.

Theological Dialogue #16: What you should know about the components of a moral choice.

The components of a moral choice are incredibly fascinating in their nature. We understand that every human act and thereby potentially moral act (remember, all moral acts are human acts, but not all human acts are moral) can be broken down into three very specific components: the object/action, the intentions, and the circumstances. In their simplest understanding, the object/action is essentially that which is actually done and thereby capable of being judged; the intention is the goal, what one desires to accomplish; and the circumstances are all the non moral components that surround every situation. In and of themselves, circumstances possess no moral quality; however, they have the remarkable ability to both increase accountability/malice/or even corrupt a good act. They are equally powerful and inconsequential simultaneously due to the fact that they are totally dependent on the execution of the action before they can have any influence.

But as we examine these individual components more specifically, we come to realize that they are actually incredibly complex in their essence.

First, the object/action. We begin here because it is the place where all decisions should begin. In other words, it is always the first thing that you look at when preparing quite literally "to act". The reason it is referred to as the object/action is due to the fact that it is, in all actuality, both of those things. It is the action associated with every decision. It is not what one desires to accomplish, but it is what one actually accomplishes, which we understand to be two very different things. And once it has been accomplished, once the action has been carried out, it becomes, definitively, an object. It is isolated in the past, there is no changing it, it is what happened and thus is can be looked at quite simply as an object in time. This quality is also what allows for the object/action to be judged. The action itself can be know with certainty, as can some of the more immediate consequences. It is our ability to "know" it that also allows us to judge it.

However, the doing of the action and the judging of it possess their own degree of complexity. Decisions are not necessarily easy to carry out in all circumstances, and sometimes we are riddled with conflict as to how to approach them. But once we have managed to act, the judgement of said act becomes dependent on another set of variables. Every object/action can be further broken down into three more components: the doer (the one acting), the done (the good that is willed), and the doee (the one acted upon). Sometimes each of the archetypes are one in the same. The doer is also the doee. Sometimes, they are completely separate. The doer and doee are not the same individual. And sometimes they are intricately interwoven. The doer is another doer's doee, while that other doer is the doee of the original doer ;) This happens when relationships, "get complicated".

How each of the individuals are impacted by what is done plays a huge role in determining the moral quality of the act. You see, there is a spectrum of analysis regarding the quality of the object/action. It can be an intrinsically evil act (one that is unable to be made good), it can be an unintended evil (a product of double effect), it can be a neutral act (possessing no good or bad qualities in an of itself)  it can be a good act capable of being corrupted, or it can be an intrinsically good act (rare, but still possible to find. Something like authentic love that is incapable of corruption. Or rainbows...) How one proceeds when they encounter an object/action should thus be determined by its intrinsic quality. If it is deemed intrinsically evil, one should simply stop and not proceed. If it is an unintended evil, one must subject it to the requirements of double effect and/or examine it in regard to the notions of formal cooperation in evil (when the evil is desired, thus making it not unintended really...) vs. material cooperation in evil (when the evil isn't desired, but you are still doing something to promote it.) If the unintended evil is thought to be a product of double effect, one must subject it to the following questions: Is it the product of a good act? Or are you doing something bad to accomplish something good? Is the intention good and the unintended evil actually unintended? Are there any other choices? Does the good ultimately outweigh the bad? If it is a neutral act, one must then consider their intentions, and the circumstances. If it is a good act, but potentially subject to corruption, then one must ensure that their intentions and/or the circumstances do not risk the corrupting of said act. (Making babies while married =good, making babies while married and also at a public pool=corrupted good act).
And finally, if an act is intrinsically good, then it should be pursued with unceasing fervor. Ultimately, we should seek to do good and avoid evil.

Regarding the intentions of every human act, this is the area with which we struggle the most. We are very invested in what we want to accomplish, even to the point that we sometimes find it to be more important than what we actually accomplished. In fact, we are even prone to ignore the actual consequences of the object/action while arguing for what we wanted to accomplish, yet didn't. With all of that said, this is what we ultimately know about intentions:
1. We do not always accomplish what we intend to accomplish. Coming to terms with this is essential.
2. We masterfully justify all of our actions, ultimately based on our good intentions; however, good in this case is subjective. Good for you? Good for me? Good for all...
3. Intentions do have the ability to impact accountability, they do not have the ability to impact morality. If you hurt somebody, intending to hurt them or not is quite important when it comes to accountability, it is totally irrelevant when it comes to morality.
4. Intentions can not change the nature of an evil act; however, they can corrupt an otherwise good action.
5. Ultimately, our intentions matter very little when it comes to morality.

Therefore, it is so important for us to shift our focus. What we do matters, what we intend to do matters less. Do good, don't simply intend to do good.

Lastly, circumstances play an interesting side role in this whole conversation of components. Again, in and of themselves, they possess no moral quality. This is important to understand because it tells us a lot about what is actually circumstantial and what is attached to the object/action in every human act. Things like the quality possessed by an individual, because they influence the morality, are intrinsic to the object, not the circumstances. When a person is innocent, their innocence is tied up in their role as the doer or doee. It is not a circumstance. When a person is married, it too is a piece of them as a doer/doee, it is not circumstantial. This is important because it allows us to better determine the morality of an act. Killing an innocent person or sleeping with a married person possesses a different moral quality than killing someone who is trying to kill you, or even sleeping with someone that isn't married yet. Furthermore, when we are determining the action/object in each of these cases, the innocence or marital status of the individuals is a piece of the action/object, not the circumstances. So what can circumstances do? They can increase accountability (or decrease it if they are causing duress) and they can increase malice. Remember pushing the person in the hallway vs. off the cliffs of Mohr....

Thus, we have two decisions when acting as humans (i.e. making decisions):

1. We can proceed with objective ethics. Examine the moral quality of an act, objectively, and then proceed accordingly.

Or...

2. We can proceed with situational ethics (the understanding that the moral quality of an act changes from situation to situation).

Proportionalism: the understanding that every act is morally neutral and good is weighed against bad to determine the moral quality.

Consequentialism: there is no good and bad, simply good and bad consequences. An action is good if one is rewarded, bad if they are "punished" (Sound familiar? First level of moral development... babies...)

Utilitarianism: The moral quality of an act is determined by how useful it is to the doer.

If we insist on proceeding with situational ethics, we become the center of our decision making philosophy. And if we remain at the center, we never evolve morally.

But in the end, we are free, so the question becomes: where does your reason guide you?

Theological Dialogue #15: The relationship between Freedom and Morality

The church defines freedom as the power rooted in reason to make a choice.

This type of definition seems somewhat convoluted, but when examined a little more closely, it reveals a lot about what freedom truly is and what it truly requires. In order to be free (fully) one requires two things: intellect and the power to make the choice they decide upon. In other words, every free decision and action are brought about by the use of our inner freedom (the ability to reason, identify the good, and choose whether or not to pursue it) and our external freedom (the actual ability to act). If either is compromised, we are arguably less free, and consequently less human.

This notion in turn reveals a lot about what it means to be human and how our free will is wrapped up in our humanity. As noted in earlier dialogue, the reason that morality applies to humans, and solely humans, is because of the nature of their rational soul. Humans are the only animals that have the ability to identify the good and consequently to decide whether or not to act in favor of it or against it. This rational soul is comprised of two components: freedom and intellect. When God breathed the breath of life into Adam he bestowed upon him the ability to reason, which in turn allowed him to identify his own humanity and also the fact that he was alone, but he also bestowed upon him a freewill that was much different than his animal counterparts. Adam had the ability to act against his survival if he so chose. We can better understand this when we examine the directive that Adam and Eve should not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Ultimately, they were encouraged against it, but God left them free to do as they pleased. The reason that evil occurs is because we are loved and our freewill in prioritized above all else. And as a result, out of pride and disobedience (as well as a brief dip into the second stage of moral development) Adam and Eve chose to act against God's will and pursue their own.

The result of Adam and Eve's decision was their banishment from the garden, and analogously, this reveals a great deal to us about the relationship between our actions and our freedom. In other words, we learn that so long as we do the good, our freedom remains intact. However, if we choose to not do the good, our freedom is compromised. This same notion can be seen in our daily lives. If you break the law to a severe enough degree, you end up in prison. And in the same vain, if you find yourself addicted to drugs or alcohol, you lose the ability to function without them. You can no longer wake up in the morning and choose not to do those things; you have forgone your freedom in the midst of bad decisions.

Understanding this is incredibly important as we examine two elemental principles: It is in our nature to do good and when we fail to do the good, our freedom is impacted. We know this based, once again, on the nature of our soul. Because it is comprised of freedom and intellect, we are able to conclude that the decisions we make are also meant to support our freedom and intellect. They are meant to protect our freedom and grow our intellect and reason. Furthermore, every bad decision that negatively impacts intellect or freedom is theoretically against our nature. Therefore, if bad decisions take away our freedom and interrupt our intellect, while good decisions support our freedom and grow our intellect, one could argue that it is in the nature of our soul to do the good and avoid evil (i.e. the lack of the good that should be there by nature.)

Foundational Moral Principles Unit 2:
1. Doing good is in our nature because it supports our freedom and intellect, failing to do good goes against our nature in that it threatens those elements.

When we understand this to be the case, it further reveals a number of things about freedom, actions, and the morality associated with it. Because we, as humans, have the ability to identify the good and choose whether or not we pursue it, that also means that any action we perform voluntarily has a moral component. Therefore, if we have to employ our internal freedom and make a choice, then we are also able to determine whether or not that choice was moral. However, this notion carries with it a certain complexity. Remember, there is a difference between morality and accountability. And since that is the case, someone could theoretically do something morally bad, but not be accountable for it. In a state of duress, it is possible for all accountability to be removed. However, that does not mean that every state of duress will remove accountability in its entirety. Accountability is circumstantial; morality is not. For this reason, we are left with two more moral principles:

2. Every choice that requires freedom has a moral component.
3. Bad actions are always bad; however, duress might make someone less accountable. 

So how are we to become holy? How should we be set apart? Become the best version of ourselves?

Well... theoretically through the development of our rational soul, or our conscience. If we want to remain free and develop intellectually, then we have no choice but to align our conscience with the truth so as to accomplish that goal. To do anything else leaves us in jeopardy. And therein lies the primary difference between a true conscience and a erroneous one. When one evaluates every decision in regard to the truth (that which does no harm to self or others) and makes sure that their decisions are not influenced by societal influence, they in turn grow in intellect and retain their freedom. When we allow society to influence us and convince us that there is sin in something that there isn't (scrupulous conscience); or that there is no sin when there actually is (lax conscience); or worse yet, that we do not need to evaluate at all and we should make decisions strictly based on what we believe is right (certain conscience), then we often compromise our freedom and distort our intellect. And those are hard states to come back from. It is difficult to free yourself from societal restraints, and sometimes even more difficult to free yourself from your own restraints.

However, Kohlberg argues that if we dedicate ourselves to the development of our moral conscience then we can arrive at a place where we base our decisions solely on the good and thereby develop intellectually while simultaneously keeping our freedom in tact. However, he also asserst the following claims :

1. It is unlikely that we find ourselves in the same stage of moral development regarding all decisions that we make.
Ex. We speed if we know we won't get caught (1), we give into peer pressure and party even when it is illegal (3), but we treat our grandparents with compassion and kindness, sometimes even giving up our time to spend it with them (6).

2. Unfortunately, some people will never graduate beyond the brutal cycle of being stuck in the second and third level of development. They establishes a life of taking or giving and never break free of it.

3. We should all strive to be sixes in every decision we make. But in order to do so, we must honestly assess what is good (that which does no harm to self or others) and do it.

Finally, as we blend these concepts into one theme from unit 2, it might just be that our quest for holiness (to be set apart as the best version of ourselves) is best achieved by the aligning of our conscience to the truth and the development of our morality toward to objective good. In other words, we will be set about by our constant dedication to go the good, even if we have to endure ridicule and persecution in the process.