5 Non-Negotiable Issues

[LeafByNiggle]

Because we all know that as long as we achieve our goal it doesn’t matter how we did it.

After unwinding the sarcasm, it appears you are saying opposing abortion by social welfare is an instance of the end justifying an evil means. (“We may never do evil in an effort to achieve good”). But that would only be true if welfare itself were an evil. For example, we cannot reduce abortions by killing abortion doctors, because the killing of abortion doctors is itself evil, and so we may not do that. That would be a correct application of the principle you allude to. The idea of opposing abortions through welfare is not. (Although it is doubtful it would work either.)

 

[Ender]

If there is any “playing with the meaning” of words, it is those who start out claiming that intrinsic evils are “non-negotiable” in the first sense (by the definition of “intrinsic”), but then quietly slip into applying that claim in the second sense, saying that in voting you cannot consider “non-intrinsic” evils when weighed against “intrinsic evils”, because that would be “negotiating them away”, and such evils are non-negotiable.

I think it is more accurate to note that the category of “non-intrinsic evils” does not exist. What is being compared are acts that are considered evil by the church with acts that are considered by harmful and unwise by their opponents. They are in no sense evil.

According to you, [the list] contains only the issues that are politically relevant. It is** that** decision that I say is prudential.

Yes, I agree.

That torture is an intrinsic evil is not a prudential judgment. It is listed in the catechism as an intrinsic evil. There is no room for debate about whether the circumstances can ever justify it.

Yes, I agree. There can be, however, legitimate debate over what constitutes torture.

The only reason it is not on the list, again according to you, is that in the opinion of those who compiled the list, torture is not politically relevant because no politician today is championing torture. If that is a valid reason to leave something off the list, why isn’t human cloning removed from the list? There are no politicians who are calling for human cloning.

That would be a valid debate. A debate about whether to include “taking care of the poor” or “caring for the environment”, however, would not.

You will have to be a little more clear with your analogy. It sounds like you are saying that torture can be omitted from the list because people can have varying opinions on what constitutes torture, but they cannot have varying opinions on what constitutes abortion.

I believe this was Ridgerunner’s argument, in any event it was not mine. Which is not to say there is no merit to it, only that I didn’t make it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

After unwinding the sarcasm, it appears you are saying opposing abortion by social welfare is an instance of the end justifying an evil means. (“We may never do evil in an effort to achieve good”). But that would only be true if welfare itself were an evil.

No, I’m saying that directly supporting abortion on the one hand while supporting policies one believes will minimize its use on the other, is doing something evil (supporting abortion) in the hope that other actions will turn out good (reduce the numbers).

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think it is more accurate to note that the category of “non-intrinsic evils” does not exist.

That can’t be right. An intrinsically evil act is one that is fundamentally in conflict with the moral law and can never be performed under any circumstances. A non-intrinsically evil act is one that in the particular circumstances is evil, but under other circumstances might not be evil. For example: waging war. What Germany did in World War II was evil. But it was not intrinsically evil because under different circumstances, such as if Germany were the victim of an unprovoked attack by Poland, France, and Austria, the very same act they did would have been justified defense. There are many others, like shooting someone with a gun to rob him vs. shooting someone in self-defense. So I don’t know how you can say that the category of “non-intrinsic evils” does not exist.

What is being compared are acts that are considered evil by the church with acts that are considered by harmful and unwise by their opponents. They are in no sense evil.

First, I disagree that the people you speak of are opponents of the Church. They are opponents only of those who promote “the list” as an absolute veto over any other consideration. Secondly, the acts being compared are also considered evil by the Church - perhaps even intrinsically so, like torture. Or maybe just ordinary evils, denial of rights based on race.

There can be, however, legitimate debate over what constitutes torture.

Agreed. Just like there can be legitimate debate over what constitutes human cloning, which is on the list, despite being a so far unrealized and perhaps impossible hypothetical and despite being politically irrelevant.

That would be a valid debate. A debate about whether to include “taking care of the poor” or “caring for the environment”, however, would not.

Since I don’t think the list has a logically consistent definition, I can’t comment on what ought to be on the list. All I can do is point out the inconsistencies as I see them.

I believe this was Ridgerunner’s argument, in any event it was not mine. Which is not to say there is no merit to it, only that I didn’t make it.

Well, if you are not going to rely on that argument, that leaves political relevancy as your one and only reason for torture not being on the list. And as I said before, the decision as to what is politically relevant is a prudential one. But prudential judgement is just the thing you said should not be the basis of a Church-sponsored voter’s guide.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, I’m saying that directly supporting abortion on the one hand while supporting policies one believes will minimize its use on the other, is doing something evil (supporting abortion) in the hope that other actions will turn out good (reduce the numbers).

Ender

I still think this is a misapplication of the principle of not doing evil that good may come of it. This is actually a case of the principle of double effect. The “support” given to abortion, such as it is, is not intended, nor is it an essential element of the achievement of the intended goal (the reduction in the number of abortions through welfare). Compare this with a proper application of the principle of not doing evil that good might come of it. One could rob a bank to donate a large sum to a homeless shelter. In that case the robbing of the bank is not an unintended consequence of the plan. Indeed it is essential for the plan to succeed. That is a proper instance of what you are talking about. In the case of voting for a candidate who is pro-choice and pro-welfare, the pro-choice aspect is due to an unfortunate fact that the candidate proposing what you want and happens to be pro-choice.

 

[Ender]

That can’t be right. An intrinsically evil act is one that is fundamentally in conflict with the moral law and can never be performed under any circumstances. A non-intrinsically evil act is one that in the particular circumstances is evil, but under other circumstances might not be evil. For example: waging war. What Germany did in World War II was evil. But it was not intrinsically evil because under different circumstances, such as if Germany were the victim of an unprovoked attack by Poland, France, and Austria, the very same act they did would have been justified defense. There are many others, like shooting someone with a gun to rob him vs. shooting someone in self-defense. So I don’t know how you can say that the category of “non-intrinsic evils” does not exist.

I never meant to imply that people can sin only when they do something intrinsically evil. If they do something with an evil intent or with disregard for the likely consequences of their actions they have sinned. The distinction I’m making is this: one person can commit an act with a flawed intent or blatant disregard for the likely outcome, and his action is a sin, while a second person can commit the exact same act with a generous intent and a flawed understanding of the outcome, and his action is not a sin. This is why it cannot be said that the act is sinful, only that an individual has acted sinfully in committing it. This is why policies cannot be considered “non-intrinsic evils.” Our reasons for choosing them may be evil, but the policies themselves are not.

This is why issues like immigration, assisting the poor, healing the sick, etc are not moral issues. We can behave immorally when choosing our policies, but the policies themselves are not evil; there is no moral distinction between one set of proposals and another. There is likely to be a considerable difference between the effectiveness of opposite approaches, but those differences are not moral.

First, I disagree that the people you speak of are opponents of the Church.

I haven’t asserted that people who support evil are necessarily opponents of the church, only that they support evil.

They are opponents only of those who promote “the list” as an absolute veto over any other consideration.

It hasn’t been presented that way. This is an exaggeration.

Secondly, the acts being compared are also considered evil by the Church - perhaps even intrinsically so, like torture. Or maybe just ordinary evils, denial of rights based on race.

No. one. is. advocating. torture. on. either. side. It. is. not. politically. relevant.

Since I don’t think the list has a logically consistent definition…

This isn’t complicated, there are two criteria: (1) the issue involves an intrinsic evil, and (2) it is politically relevant. You may disagree about the relevancy of an issue - as you’ve done with human cloning - but that hardly means the list is not logically consistent.

Well, if you are not going to rely on that argument, that leaves political relevancy as your one and only reason for torture not being on the list. And as I said before, the decision as to what is politically relevant is a prudential one.

Of course it is, and therefore disagreement on the question of what is or is not relevant is justifiable.

But prudential judgement is just the thing you said should not be the basis of a Church-sponsored voter’s guide.

This is simply untrue; I have never said anything like this. I said there was no place on the list for prudential issues; I never suggested that prudential judgment was not involved in the creation of the list. This is not really complicated, I don’t understand why you seem determined to distort a rather simple concept.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why are conservatives always on the defensive these days. lol This is a bad time to be on the far Right that is for sure. Our own gov Snyder is hearing the steps in the hall after standing by while children were poisoned. The Republican Presidential campaign has been turned into a circus by a master showman who wants to ban Muslims. The second runner up wants to carpet Bomb Iraq, and Syria. You can’t make this stuff up. Most know it now as the party that makes fun of the war on poverty and wants desperately to get rid of Social Security. They are seen as even worse when they tell people they must vote for Republicans because they will end abortion. They are not going to get Roe v wade over turned and the best they can hope for is to make life hard for Planned parent hood. Worthy past time that.I wish they would stick to it and quite beating up on the poor and the workers.

ATB

There is a lot to distinguish in this.

Why are conservatives on the defensive? With whom? Liberals? The left has more voice because it has the mainstream media on its side. That’s about the size of it.

So, as a consequence, some end up with the impression that Trump wants to “ban Muslims” without saying the rest of what he said, which is until they can be vetted for immigration into this country.

“Carpet bombing”. What was that in context? The speaker of that line didn’t add “civilian areas”. I’m not entirely certain what he meant, but there are certainly places controlled by ISIS that could be “carpet bombed” without undue risk of civilian casualties. Much of Syria and Iraq are dots of liveable places interspersed with huge areas over which only traffic is found. One recalls the decision not to bomb convoys of truck carrying oil for ISIS which we didn’t bomb at all because of the possibility that some driver or other might not really be ISIS himself.

Not a single candidate has advocated abolition of Social Security. That’s just a Dem party untruth. They used that one on the Ryan budget, saying he wanted to “get rid of” welfare when he only proposed raising it 8% instead of the 12% the Dems wanted.

But again, the left has a lock on the mainstream media, and a lot of people get their understanding of reality from it. It’s too bad.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One thing about the “five non-negotiables” is that the evil is in the thing itself and there’s almost no possibility of misunderstanding what they mean. A child is either aborted or he isn’t. A person purports to be married to a person of the same sex or he doesn’t. There’s no “in-between” to them.

Torture, as a term, allows of interpretation as to what it is. Many, many times on CAF I have asked people to define it in such a way as to include all acts that really are sinful and exclude things that are not necessarily sinful acts. No one has done it yet.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I never meant to imply that people can sin only when they do something intrinsically evil. If they do something with an evil intent or with disregard for the likely consequences of their actions they have sinned. The distinction I’m making is this: one person can commit an act with a flawed intent or blatant disregard for the likely outcome, and his action is a sin, while a second person can commit the exact same act with a generous intent and a flawed understanding of the outcome, and his action is not a sin. This is why it cannot be said that the act is sinful, only that an individual has acted sinfully in committing it.

You are conflating evil with sinful. They are not the same. An act can be evil because of its outcome even if the person committing the act is not guilty of sinning because of ignorance or a flawed understanding of the outcome. I still don’t understand how you can say there is no such thing as a non-intrinsic evil when I gave several examples of them.

This is why policies cannot be considered “non-intrinsic evils.” Our reasons for choosing them may be evil, but the policies themselves are not.

I didn’t say that policies were non-intrinsic evils. I said that policies can be about non-intrinsic evils. But a policy that causes bad things to happen I would call an evil policy.

No. one. is. advocating. torture. on. either. side. It. is. not. politically. relevant.

Saying this slowly with full stops after each word does not make it objectively true. It is still your prudential judgement. There are plenty of people who believe otherwise.

This isn’t complicated, there are two criteria: (1) the issue involves an intrinsic evil, and (2) it is politically relevant. You may disagree about the relevancy of an issue - as you’ve done with human cloning - but that hardly means the list is not logically consistent.

No. one. is. advocating. human. cloning. on. either. side. It. is. not. politically. relevant.

Of course it is, and therefore disagreement on the question of what is or is not relevant is justifiable.

Since political relevancy is one of the criteria for an issue being on the list, disagreement on the question of what is or is not to be on the list is justifiable. I choose to believe that torture should be on the list and human cloning removed for that very reason.

This is simply untrue; I have never said anything like this. I said there was no place on the list for prudential issues; I never suggested that prudential judgment was not involved in the creation of the list. This is not really complicated, I don’t understand why you seem determined to distort a rather simple concept.
Ender

Time and time again you have used the example of how decisions on how best to deal with immigration should not be part of a voter’s guide because people of good will can disagree about the means to achieve a good end. It seemed to me you were saying that the fact that it is a prudential judgement is why immigration should not be on the list.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Operating a bar is not an intrinsic evil. Homosexual acts are.

Are civil unions an intrinsic evil? It seems that gay bars promote homosexuality as much or more than civil unions.

 

[Ender]

You are conflating evil with sinful.

Define what you mean by evil. It begins to sound like you mean anything that is harmful is evil.

An act can be evil because of its outcome even if the person committing the act is not guilty of sinning because of ignorance or a flawed understanding of the outcome.

If my act is not intrinsically evil, my intentions are good, and I have exercised due caution yet the act has a negative outcome is the act evil? Is it the outcome that makes the act evil? I will just point out that the outcome alone can never determine the moral nature of an act.

I still don’t understand how you can say there is no such thing as a non-intrinsic evil when I gave several examples of them.

You need to read more carefully. Obviously people can sin when committing an act that does not involve an intrinsic evil. Going to war is a prudential choice, but that clearly doesn’t mean that every choice is morally justified. Our choice to join in WWII was morally just; Hitler’s choice is causing it was not, but his act was wrong because of its intent, not simply because of its horrific result.

I didn’t say that policies were non-intrinsic evils. I said that policies can be about non-intrinsic evils.

If the people choose a particular policy based on their expectation and desire that it will have harmful effects, that is an immoral act. It is not an immoral policy. I have no idea what you mean by a policy being about a non-intrinsic evil.

But a policy that causes bad things to happen I would call an evil policy.

A policy that causes bad things to happen is undoubtedly a foolish one, but it is not evil. In fact, it cannot be evil unless it involves acts that are intrinsically evil because, absent that, only an evil intent can make the act evil; the outcome cannot have that effect.

Saying this slowly with full stops after each word does not make it objectively true. It is still your prudential judgement. There are plenty of people who believe otherwise.

Name someone who is advocating for torture.

No. one. is. advocating. human. cloning. on. either. side. It. is. not. politically. relevant.

This is a different argument; let’s deal with one thing at a time. Regarding cloning, your assertion is not accurate: this has in fact been an issue for the last 20 years since cloning is a technique to create an embryo for the production of stem cells. According to the NIH:*In July 2001, the House of Representatives voted 265 to 162 to make any human cloning a criminal offense, including cloning to create an embryo for derivation of stem cells rather than to produce a child.

…Current [2006] bills before Congress would ban all forms of cloning outright, prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes, and impose a moratorium on cloning to derive stem cells for research, or prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes while allowing cloning for therapeutic purposes to go forward*
The following is from the 2012 Democrat Platformthe President issued an executive order repealing the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research
The restrictions referred to here are the ones put in place by Bush '43. So, human cloning is in fact an issue today, albeit one usually lost in the overall ESCR debate.

I choose to believe that torture should be on the list and human cloning removed for that very reason.

I have demonstrated that cloning is a current issue. If you can actually show that torture is an issue then I will accept your call to have it added, but you’ll have to do better than say you “choose to believe”.

Time and time again you have used the example of how decisions on how best to deal with immigration should not be part of a voter’s guide because people of good will can disagree about the means to achieve a good end. It seemed to me you were saying that the fact that it is a prudential judgement is why immigration should not be on the list.

Exactly so. Resolving immigration issues involves prudential judgments about which individuals may legitimately disagree. There is no moral distinction between policies for or against any specific proposal. Since there is no moral difference between the positions, it has no place on a list of issues that are about…moral differences.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Are civil unions an intrinsic evil? It seems that gay bars promote homosexuality as much or more than civil unions.

Think two. Two criteria. Not just one, but two.

1. Does the issue involve an intrinsic evil?
2. Is it politically relevant?

Whatever one’s position on whether gay bars satisfy the first criterion, there is no doubt that they do not meet the second one. Therefore the issue is irrelevant as far as the list is concerned.

Ender

 

[marymary1975]

Any and all Catholics should recognize that neither of the major parties in the US is aligned with Catholic teachings.

I am 100% in agreement with you.

I don’t remember where did I read that Democrats want to kill you before you are born and Republicans want to kill you after you are born. So true! That is why I don’t like neither one.

 

[clem456]

I am 100% in agreement with you.

I don’t remember where did I read that Democrats want to kill you before you are born and Republicans want to kill you after you are born. So true! That is why I don’t like neither one.

Except neither one is really true. I know what you are saying but those are pithy generalizations. Those generalizations are used by many to vacate their responsibility to make any sound decision, by pointing to the fact that everyone is flawed. Our flaws should spur us to make good decisions, not throw up our hands in surrender.

Morality is tough. It’s supposed to be tough. Human beings are complicated and we have to make decisions based on many factors. Relative gravity of evil is one of them.

 

[marymary1975]

Except neither one is really true. I know what you are saying but those are pithy generalizations. Those generalizations are used by many to vacate their responsibility to make any sound decision, by pointing to the fact that everyone is flawed. Our flaws should spur us to make good decisions, not throw up our hands in surrender.

Morality is tough. It’s supposed to be tough. Human beings are complicated and we have to make decisions based on many factors. Relative gravity of evil is one of them.

Yes they are true. What happens is that Americans have been brainwashed into a political pick and choose and have divided the whole of Catholic teaching and been told that they can discard a part of it and they have made believe that one party is the church’s party which is not true. That is why Pope Francis hits a nerve on many conservatives because they have fallen into this and don’t realize that neither party aligns with the teaching of the church.

Regardless of the fact that one issue is intrinsically evil or not, catholicism is a whole and you should follow it as a whole not leaving stuff out because it is not intrinsically evil we don’t need it. Neither party follows the doctrine of the church and you cannot attempt to fit church’s teachings into politics

 

[Ender]

Yes they are true. What happens is that Americans have been brainwashed into a political pick and choose and have divided the whole of Catholic teaching and been told that they can discard a part of it and they have made believe that one party is the church’s party which is not true. That is why Pope Francis hits a nerve on many conservatives because they have fallen into this and don’t realize that neither party aligns with the teaching of the church.

Regardless of the fact that one issue is intrinsically evil or not, catholicism is a whole and you should follow it as a whole not leaving stuff out because it is not intrinsically evil we don’t need it. Neither party follows the doctrine of the church and you cannot attempt to fit church’s teachings into politics

I’d like to know what policies you are referring to. When you say Pope Francis hit a nerve with conservatives, exactly what did you have in mind? When you answer, be prepared to account for the difference between doctrinal teachings and prudential opinions.

Ender

 

[gracepoole]

Morality is tough. It’s supposed to be tough.

This is very true. Perhaps it’s also why an overly simplified list of five issues is ill-advised.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is very true. Perhaps it’s also why an overly simplified list of five issues is ill-advised.

Maybe the problem with the list is not that it exists, but the use to which some people put that list. As general instruction about moral theology, it is good to remind people that no argument about the hardships of an unplanned pregnancy, or the sufferings of a terminally ill patient, or potential medical benefits to spinal cord treatment, or the genuine love experienced by member of the same sex can ever rise the level of justifying abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, or same-sex marriage. But, when some people claim this list as a veto over voting for any other reason, that is when this list becomes a problem.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Define what you mean by evil. It begins to sound like you mean anything that is harmful is evil.

It is not my made-up definition. It the Catholic usage of the word evil.

If my act is not intrinsically evil, my intentions are good, and I have exercised due caution yet the act has a negative outcome is the act evil? Is it the outcome that makes the act evil? I will just point out that the outcome alone can never determine the moral nature of an act.

When you speak of the moral nature of an act, you are speaking about sin, not about evil. As you can see from the definition cited above, evil is closely tied to outcome.

You need to read more carefully. Obviously people can sin when committing an act that does not involve an intrinsic evil. Going to war is a prudential choice, but that clearly doesn’t mean that every choice is morally justified. Our choice to join in WWII was morally just; Hitler’s choice is causing it was not, but his act was wrong because of its intent, not simply because of its horrific result.

I agree with this, but it does not challenge the fact that war is a non-intrinsic evil. In fact, you seem to be supporting that statement rather than challenging it.

I have no idea what you mean by a policy being about a non-intrinsic evil.

That is not surprising since you do not admit that non-intrinsic evils exist. But if you did admit that war is a non-intrinsic evil, you would then accept that policies about war are policies about non-intrinsic evils.

Name someone who is advocating for torture.

The 21 senators who voted against amendment 1889 on June 9, 2015.

This is a different argument; let’s deal with one thing at a time. Regarding cloning, your assertion is not accurate: this has in fact been an issue for the last 20 years since cloning is a technique to create an embryo for the production of stem cells. According to the NIH:*In July 2001, the House of Representatives voted 265 to 162 to make any human cloning a criminal offense, including cloning to create an embryo for derivation of stem cells rather than to produce a child.

…Current [2006] bills before Congress would ban all forms of cloning outright, prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes, and impose a moratorium on cloning to derive stem cells for research, or prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes while allowing cloning for therapeutic purposes to go forward*
The following is from the 2012 Democrat Platformthe President issued an executive order repealing the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research
The restrictions referred to here are the ones put in place by Bush '43. So, human cloning is in fact an issue today, albeit one usually lost in the overall ESCR debate.

You got me there. I did not realize this was actively debated in congress. But I still say that even if it is politically discussed, it is a hypothetical that may be scientifically impossible. Its relationship with ESCR is already covered by ESCR being on the list. There is no need to put something else on the list just because it involves something already on the list.

I have demonstrated that cloning is a current issue. If you can actually show that torture is an issue then I will accept your call to have it added, but you’ll have to do better than say you “choose to believe”.

Well, as I showed, torture has been debated in Congress as recently as last June. A unlike human cloning, torture has already become an historical fact.

Exactly so. Resolving immigration issues involves prudential judgments about which individuals may legitimately disagree. There is no moral distinction between policies for or against any specific proposal. Since there is no moral difference between the positions, it has no place on a list of issues that are about…moral differences.

Ender

OK, so we agree that questions about how to balance justice for immigrants with security for ourselves is a prudential choice. I never said immigration policy should be on the list.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Think two. Two criteria. Not just one, but two.

1. Does the issue involve an intrinsic evil?
2. Is it politically relevant?

Whatever one’s position on whether gay bars satisfy the first criterion, there is no doubt that they do not meet the second one. Therefore the issue is irrelevant as far as the list is concerned.

Ender

I could say:* On a local level, politicians do affect zoning laws, either directly or by the administrators they appoint. Zoning decisions can affect whether a gay bar gets a license in a place of high public visibility. So I would say it satisfies the second criterion too. * But scratch all that because:

My argument wasn’t really that gay bars should be on the list. It was a response to Ridgerunner who said:

Operating a bar is not an intrinsic evil. Homosexual acts are.

which was a statement about your criterion #1. So my response challenged only that criterion. I actually do agree that gay bars are not politically relevant.

But the line of debate with Ridgerunner was over whether same-sex marriage is clear cut. Remember, his argument (which you declined to comment on one way or the other) was that items on the list are there partly because they are clear-cut, whereas things like torture are not clear-cut. My argument was that even the items on the list are not necessarily clear-cut. I gave civil unions as an example of something that may or may not qualify as an instance of “same-sex marriage”.