What is "moral certainty"?

[Daniel]

Is this a good definition/description?

Moral certitude is that with which judgments are formed concerning human character and conduct; for the laws of human nature are not quite universal, but subject to occasional exceptions. It is moral certitude which we generally attain in the conduct of life, concerning, for example, the friendship of others, the fidelity of a wife or a husband, the form of government under which we live, or the occurrence of certain historical events, such as the Protestant Reformation or the French Revolution. Though almost any detail in these events may be made a subject of dispute, especially when we enter the region of motives and try to trace cause and effect, and though almost any one of the witnesses may be shown to have made some mistake or misrepresentation, yet the occurrence of the events, taken in the mass, is certain.

I'm not seeing how this counts as "certainty".

And what if the believed claim is false... can a person really be "certain" of something that isn't true?

[Melkor]

Is this a good definition/description?

Moral certitude is that with which judgments are formed concerning human character and conduct; for the laws of human nature are not quite universal, but subject to occasional exceptions. It is moral certitude which we generally attain in the conduct of life, concerning, for example, the friendship of others, the fidelity of a wife or a husband, the form of government under which we live, or the occurrence of certain historical events, such as the Protestant Reformation or the French Revolution. Though almost any detail in these events may be made a subject of dispute, especially when we enter the region of motives and try to trace cause and effect, and though almost any one of the witnesses may be shown to have made some mistake or misrepresentation, yet the occurrence of the events, taken in the mass, is certain.

I'm not seeing how this counts as "certainty".

And what if the believed claim is false... can a person really be "certain" of something that isn't true?

If you truly believe something, regardless if it is right or wrong, you are 'certain' of it, as in you are convinced of its certitude. I think that actual moral certainty is deeply rooted in the True Faith, as only than can you be absolutely certain of moral decisions and problems that arise. But someone who believes in their false religion's doctrine can be 'certain' of it, and think they have 'moral' certainty, although the latter is simply not true. Interesting topic.

[Philip G.]

Is this a good definition/description?

Moral certitude is that with which judgments are formed concerning human character and conduct; for the laws of human nature are not quite universal, but subject to occasional exceptions. It is moral certitude which we generally attain in the conduct of life, concerning, for example, the friendship of others, the fidelity of a wife or a husband, the form of government under which we live, or the occurrence of certain historical events, such as the Protestant Reformation or the French Revolution. Though almost any detail in these events may be made a subject of dispute, especially when we enter the region of motives and try to trace cause and effect, and though almost any one of the witnesses may be shown to have made some mistake or misrepresentation, yet the occurrence of the events, taken in the mass, is certain.

I'm not seeing how this counts as "certainty".

And what if the believed claim is false... can a person really be "certain" of something that isn't true?

For example, the friendship of others, the fidelity of a wife or a husband, the form of government under which we live, or the occurrence of certain historical events, such as the Protestant Reformation or the French Revolution

It is modernist.  They have the government and the mob as the secular authority figures, and the friend and a spouse as the religious authority figures.  Jesus did say, I no longer call you servants, but friends.  But, he was speaking to the apostles, who are the bishops, who are authority figures.  They are more a father, than a friend.  And, a priest is also culturally called "father".  So, the only "friend" left is the "prophet"(Christ is priest, prophet, and king).  Because, we are in no shape to have a king-friend.  At this stage in our degenerate society, a king-friend would most "certainly" be an enemy.  We have four years of that fresh in our memory.

[Gardener]

Is this a good definition/description?

Moral certitude is that with which judgments are formed concerning human character and conduct; for the laws of human nature are not quite universal, but subject to occasional exceptions. It is moral certitude which we generally attain in the conduct of life, concerning, for example, the friendship of others, the fidelity of a wife or a husband, the form of government under which we live, or the occurrence of certain historical events, such as the Protestant Reformation or the French Revolution. Though almost any detail in these events may be made a subject of dispute, especially when we enter the region of motives and try to trace cause and effect, and though almost any one of the witnesses may be shown to have made some mistake or misrepresentation, yet the occurrence of the events, taken in the mass, is certain.

I'm not seeing how this counts as "certainty".

And what if the believed claim is false... can a person really be "certain" of something that isn't true?

For example, the friendship of others, the fidelity of a wife or a husband, the form of government under which we live, or the occurrence of certain historical events, such as the Protestant Reformation or the French Revolution

They have the government and the mob as the secular authority figures, and the friend and the spouse as the religious authority figures.  Jesus did say, I no longer call you servants, but friends.  But, he was speaking to the apostles, who are the bishops, who are authority figures.  They are more a father, than a friend.  And, a priest is also culturally called "father".  So, the only "friend" left is the "prophet".  Because, we are in no shape to have a king-friend.  At this stage in our degenerate society, a king-friend would most "certainly" be a enemy.  We have four years of that fresh in our memory.

What does this have to do with anything he's asking about?

----
Daniel, you might find this article helpful.
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/st-thomas-aquinas-on-assurance-of-salvation/

[Melkor]

Can't go wrong with the Summa!

[Aulef]

Moral certainty is related to human will. A person is only certain when their intelligence adheres fully to some judgment. If it isn't 100%, then they face opinion. And when the intelligence doesn't adhere to the judgment then there is doubt.

Maybe these distinctions make it easier to understand.

Edit - I forgot to mention morality is a characteristic of human action.

[christulsa]

Certainty is the intellect adhering to an idea or proposition as true in reality.

But there are different degrees of our ideas being strictly in conformity with truth, approaching a knowledge that is "certain."

The different degrees of knowledge being: possibility, likelihood, probability, and certainty.

The difference between metaphysical certainty and moral certainty (as defined in the OP by the Catholic encyclopedia), is that the former is absolute.  For example, 1 + 1 = 2 is an absolute certainty.  So is "Catholicism is the only true religion."   But if say a potential convert has some doubts about Catholicism, but the evidence and personal experience of it are overwhelming then they'd be morally certain it is the true Faith enough to convert and start catechism, until they have certain faith.  After accepting the Faith, the believer would treat all dogmatic positions as metaphysically certain. 

I think the main feature in moral certainty that makes it "moral," where "moral" pertains to action, is that the certainty is enough to morally act in one way or another.  For example, if you conclude with moral certainty that a person has a bad character or is a bad friend, then you avoid the person.  Or if all evidence points to you being called to a certain vocation or profession, then you pursue it. 

[Daniel]

If you truly believe something, regardless if it is right or wrong, you are 'certain' of it, as in you are convinced of its certitude. I think that actual moral certainty is deeply rooted in the True Faith, as only than can you be absolutely certain of moral decisions and problems that arise. But someone who believes in their false religion's doctrine can be 'certain' of it, and think they have 'moral' certainty, although the latter is simply not true. Interesting topic.

I guess this makes sense. But it still seems a little strange:
- I would think that in order to be certain about a particular judgement, you'd need to make this judgement in such a way that you know with certainty that it is not mistaken. But it is impossible to do this with a false judgement, since that judgement would necessarily be mistaken.
- I would also think that once you've arrived at certainty, no new knowledge will be able to sway you into believing the contrary. But if you're mistaken, and if you find out that you're mistaken, and if you're not completely stubborn, you're probably going to change your mind. Which seems to indicate that you never had certainty to begin with. What you had was conviction, and perhaps you mistook it for certainty, but it wasn't certainty.

Daniel, you might find this article helpful.
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/st-thomas-aquinas-on-assurance-of-salvation/

I gave it a read, but I'm not really seeing how it relates to this thread, except maybe tangentially.
Anyway, I can't say for sure that I entirely understand it. But it seems faulty.

Moral certainty is related to human will. A person is only certain when their intelligence adheres fully to some judgment. If it isn't 100%, then they face opinion. And when the intelligence doesn't adhere to the judgment then there is doubt.

Is this an intellectual adherence, or a volitional adherence? If the latter, this seems more like stubbornness rather than certainty. But if the former, this is what I don't see as possible. At least with regard to the sorts of examples given (e.g. the historicity of the Protestant Revolution, the historicity of the French Revolution, etc.). None of us were there, so we have no idea what really happened. Maybe there was some massive conspiracy or something, where not only the events but also the entire historical ripple effect was fabricated. Not very likely, (which is why for practical purposes we generally choose to believe in the historicity of the event rather than the conspiracy theory, and we'll even speak as if we knew for sure that these events were historical,) but it nevertheless leaves open the possibility that these events were ahistorical. Which means there's doubt, which means there's no certainty.

[Melkor]

Well you can be absolutely certainly convinced that you are right, or convinced that you are certain of your 'certain' and particular conviction. If this makes no sense to you, don't worry, it makes no sense to me either lol. But what is the difference between conviction and certainty? Is conviction subjective and certainty purely objective? Are the two words interchangeable?

[Vincentus Ioannes]

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435016776312&view=1up&seq=157

[Philip G.]

Moral certainty is the modernist replacement for objective morality.  Reverse the order, insert a euphemism, and voila, you can now utilize the word morality unto an entirely distant and erroneous end.  It is a means to an end.  Objective morality... moral certainty... po*tato... pota*to.

[Vincentus Ioannes]

Moral certainty is the modernist replacement for objective morality.  Reverse the order, insert a euphemism, and voila, you can now utilize the word morality unto an entirely distant and erroneous end.  It is a means to an end.  Objective morality... moral certainty... po*tato... pota*to.

I'm sorry, this is completely wrong.  Take a look at the chapter from Glenn I posted above.

[Non Nobis]

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13516b.htm

The Sceptic fails to distinguish between practical moral certainty which excludes all grounds for doubt, and absolute certainty which excludes all possible grounds for doubt. The latter can be had only when evidence is complete, proof wholly adequate, obvious, and conclusive, and when all difficulties and objections can be completely solved. In mathematics this is sometimes possible, though not always; but in other matters "practical certainty" as a rule is all we can get. And this is sufficient, since "practical certainty" is certainty for reasonable beings.

[ChristusRex]

Moral certainty is the modernist replacement for objective morality.  Reverse the order, insert a euphemism, and voila, you can now utilize the word morality unto an entirely distant and erroneous end.  It is a means to an end.  Objective morality... moral certainty... po*tato... pota*to.

What are you talking about?