5 Non-Negotiable Issues

[o_mlly]

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

1. Because some acts immoral by circumstance are greater evils than acts which ae intrinsically evil, Catholics ought focus on any and all legislation that promotes or would tend to promote immorality. For example, age-of-consent laws – the minimum age at which a child can legally have sex with an adult. While the lowering of the age is not intrinsically evil, it would tend to legalize pedophilia.
2. All sin is politically relevant because personal sin is social sin in the sense that its evil effects ripple out to harm all society.

With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm, every sin has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and the whole human family. According to this first meaning of the term, every sin can undoubtedly be considered as social sin.
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
JOHN PAUL II

 

[pnewton]

1. Because some acts immoral by circumstance are greater evils than acts which ae intrinsically evil,…

This is an interesting point. War is not intrinsically evil. Artificial contraception is. Is a woman’s act of artificial contraception a greater evil than a war of conquest by a brutal dictator because it’s evil is intrinsic and war’s is not?

 

[Ender]

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

This site identifies three types of evil: physical, moral, and metaphysical. I have been using the term in its moral sense:By moral evil are understood the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation

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.

It seems you are using evil in its physical sense: sickness, accidents, hurricanes. This results in a misleading conversation. It would seem a better, less confusing term, would be harm, not evil, for while physical evil may be dependent on outcome, moral evil is not.

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.

War is not a moral evil. It is harmful. Calling it a non-intrinsic evil is simply a misleading melange of two kinds of evil, moral and physical.

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.

I admit that war is harmful, and is evil in the same sense that tornadoes are evil. War is not, however, a moral evil.

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

Then again, maybe not. Even the amendment’s stated purpose was not about prohibiting torture, but reaffirming existing regulations. “Purpose: To reaffirm the prohibition on torture.” Nor did a vote against the amendment necessarily signify that its opponents support torture.“The Senate vote on the McCain amendment was not about taking a stance on torture,” Inhofe said. “The Army Manual is public and easily accessible by terrorists, such as ISIL, with a simple search on the world wide web. What I do not support is telegraphing to the enemy our intelligence-gathering playbook, which the enemy can use to train their recruits on counter-interrogation techniques. What would have been better policy is to require the other agencies to adopt anti-torture policies contained within the Army Manual but that are kept classified, which would still be accessible by Members of Congress to provide oversight.”

But I still say that even if it is politically discussed, it is a hypothetical that may be scientifically impossible.

It is not only scientifically possible but is currently being practiced.

OK, so we agree that questions about how to balance justice for immigrants with security for ourselves is a prudential choice.

True, prudential issues should not be included.

Ender

 

[marymary1975]

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

Policies? I haven’t even mention the word policy so what do you mean by what policy I refer when I haven’t said that. Read again what I said. I said that no party aligns with the teaching of the church. Or do you think that the social teaching of the church is not part of the teaching of the church and was just invented by Pope Francis? And yes, Pope Francis hit a nerve with conservatives and he has even been called communist. Marco Rubio had an entire rant over the Pope about how he is wrong. Go to any country outside of the US and you will see that they think Americans are crazy because they are trying to fit religious teachings into political parties

 

[Ender]

Policies? I haven’t even mention the word policy so what do you mean by what policy I refer when I haven’t said that.

What other than a specific policy proposal could be considered contrary to church doctrine?

I said that no party aligns with the teaching of the church. Or do you think that the social teaching of the church is not part of the teaching of the church and was just invented by Pope Francis?

“Social teaching” is a rather broad, not to mention vague, category. Could you perhaps be a bit more specific? Which aspect of the church’s social teaching do you feel has been ignored? Immigration? The minimum wage? Health care? I think you’ll find that when you start getting into details the argument starts falling apart.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

This is an interesting point. War is not intrinsically evil. Artificial contraception is. Is a woman’s act of artificial contraception a greater evil than a war of conquest by a brutal dictator because … [her] evil [act] is intrinsic and [the dictator’s act is evil by circumstance] … ?

What criteria could we use to rank degrees of evil?

If you rank a potential soul never actuated because of human evil as a greater evil than the sufferings and premature deaths of some large number of humans because of an unjust war then you have an answer.

I would think the degree of evil imputed to the woman to be probably less than the degree of evil imputed to the dictator. But I would not judge; that is for God alone.

 

[pnewton]

What criteria could we use to rank degrees of evil?

If you rank a potential soul never actuated because of human evil as a greater evil than the sufferings and premature deaths of some large number of humans because of an unjust war then you have an answer.

I would think the degree of evil imputed to the woman to be probably less than the degree of evil imputed to the dictator. But I would not judge; that is for God alone.

Perhaps you were not following the whole conversation. The whole concept of “five non-negotiable” presumes the very judgment you say belong to God alone. As to the actual criteria of determining the degree of sin, here is what the catechism states.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

If you note, intrinsic evil is not one of the determiners of the severity of sin. I have no problem considering and weighing the severity of sin. It is not contrary to Catholicism to do so. What is forbidden is the personal judgment of a person, not the judging of acts.

 

[o_mlly]

Perhaps you were not following the whole conversation.

Perhaps you replied too quickly. See below.

The whole concept of “five non-negotiable” presumes the very judgment you say belong to God alone.

No, I think you presume incorrectly. The topic does not refer to judging the state of the souls of legislators but rather the legislative ACTS that these legislators will or will not support.
…

If you note, intrinsic evil is not one of the determiners of the severity of sin. I have no problem considering and weighing the severity of sin. It is not contrary to Catholicism to do so. What is forbidden is the personal judgment of a person, not the judging of acts.

A bit confusing. That intrinsically evil acts are not necessarily a greater evil than acts evil by circumstance was my point. Are you trying to say something else?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I admit that war is harmful, and is evil in the same sense that tornadoes are evil. War is not, however, a moral evil.

This discussion on the definition of evil is getting further from the central point of the 5 non-negotiable issues, so let’s return to that main point. You say war is not a moral evil, but is evil (harmful) only in the same sense that tornadoes are harmful. That would imply there are no moral consequences in choosing to launch an unprovoked attack on another nation, even if it is done with full knowledge that such an attack is unjustified, and with the intent of acquiring that nation’s resources. Or, to put it in more personal terms, the act of theft (which under some extreme circumstances can be morally justified) would never have real moral consequences, since the decision of whether this or that theft is justifiable is itself a prudential decision. Therefore all thieves should merely be “re-educated” to make better prudential decisions rather than “punished” for violating a moral precept. If you are going to deny the existence of all moral evil, except for the intrinsically evil ones, how can you ever see theft as a moral evil? In fact, your interpretation would throw out most of the ten commandments as moral issues.

Then again, maybe not. Even the amendment’s stated purpose was not about prohibiting torture, but reaffirming existing regulations. “Purpose: To reaffirm the prohibition on torture.” Nor did a vote against the amendment necessarily signify that its opponents support torture.

“Necessarily” is a key word here. You admit that some may interpret that amendment as supporting torture and some may not. It is a prudential decision. So if I believe (as many people do) that this amendment is about prohibiting torture, it would be, in my opinion, a politically relevant issue about an intrinsic moral evil. Therefore for me, it is non-negotiable. It is on my list. Some of the 5 issues mentioned have no better justification that this issue.

It is not only scientifically possible but is currently being practiced.

Human cloning is definitely possible? I must have missed that news flash. And it is currently being practiced? I don’t think so. The most you can say is that ESCR is being practiced, but you would have a hard time showing that specific research is aimed at trying to clone a human. As I said, ESCR is already on the list. It does not need to be on the list twice.

 

[Ender]

You say war is not a moral evil, but is evil (harmful) only in the same sense that tornadoes are harmful. That would imply there are no moral consequences in choosing to launch an unprovoked attack on another nation, even if it is done with full knowledge that such an attack is unjustified, and with the intent of acquiring that nation’s resources.

First, there is no such thing as a moral consequence. Consequences may be harmful or helpful, but they cannot be moral or immoral. Only acts (including choices) can be judged morally.

Second, that a particular act is not intrinsically evil certainly doesn’t mean a person can commit that act in all circumstances without committing a moral evil. In such a case, however, the morality of the act is determined not by the act itself but by the intention behind it.

Or, to put it in more personal terms, the act of theft (which under some extreme circumstances can be morally justified) would never have real moral consequences, since the decision of whether this or that theft is justifiable is itself a prudential decision. Therefore all thieves should merely be “re-educated” to make better prudential decisions rather than “punished” for violating a moral precept. If you are going to deny the existence of all moral evil, except for the intrinsically evil ones, how can you ever see theft as a moral evil? In fact, your interpretation would throw out most of the ten commandments as moral issues.

If my comments seem ludicrous to you, you might want to allow for the possibility that you have completely misunderstood what I said.

Human cloning is definitely possible? I must have missed that news flash. And it is currently being practiced? I don’t think so.

There are three different types of artificial cloning: gene cloning, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. You’re thinking only of reproductive cloning, like with Dolly the sheep. In fact therapeutic cloning of humans is already allowed. Therapeutic cloning involves creating a cloned embryo, which is then harvested for its stem cells. Only if you insist that a human embryo is not actually a human can you claim that humans are not being cloned. That the embryos are not being allowed to develop hardly means that the experimenters aren’t dealing with human cloning. This is from an MIT Technology Review article published in 2007:*A year and a half after a highly publicized approval to start human therapeutic-cloning research at Harvard…
*As I said, human cloning is already allowed.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

First, there is no such thing as a moral consequence.

There’s no such thing as moral consequences. There’s no such thing as non-negotiable evils. I think you have played the “there’s no such thing” card a bit too much. You will find that Pope Francis has used the phrase “moral consequences” in his address in August 2013.

Second, that a particular act is not intrinsically evil certainly doesn’t mean a person can commit that act in all circumstances without committing a moral evil. In such a case, however, the morality of the act is determined not by the act itself but by the intention behind it.

Wait. You are now admitting that there** can be** such a thing as a non-intrinsic evil? Also this statement does not refute mine.

If my comments seem ludicrous to you, you might want to allow for the possibility that you have completely misunderstood what I said.

I did not call them ludicrous. But consider my posting to be my invitation to you to clarify your position and make yourself understood.

There are three different types of artificial cloning: gene cloning, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. You’re thinking only of reproductive cloning, like with Dolly the sheep. In fact therapeutic cloning of humans is already allowed. Therapeutic cloning involves creating a cloned embryo, which is then harvested for its stem cells. Only if you insist that a human embryo is not actually a human can you claim that humans are not being cloned. That the embryos are not being allowed to develop hardly means that the experimenters aren’t dealing with human cloning. This is from an MIT Technology Review article published in 2007:*A year and a half after a highly publicized approval to start human therapeutic-cloning research at Harvard…
*As I said, human cloning is already allowed.

Ender

You obviously mean “allowed by civil law” and not “allowed by the Church”. But this is still an instance of ESCR, and as such it is already on the list. Why have ESCR on the list twice?

 

[Ender]

There’s no such thing as moral consequences. There’s no such thing as non-negotiable evils. I think you have played the “there’s no such thing” card a bit too much. You will find that Pope Francis has used the phrase “moral consequences” in his address in August 2013.

Give me an example of a moral consequence as distinguished from a harmful consequence. And what is a non-negotiable evil and how does it differ from a negotiable one?

You are now admitting that there** can be** such a thing as a non-intrinsic evil?

An intrinsic evil is an act that is evil in all circumstances; it is evil because of its matter. Obviously other evil acts can be committed, but they would be evil because of their circumstances or because of the intent behind them. The difference is, it would be incorrect to call the type of act evil since what is evil is not the act in general but the specifics of a particular instance of it.

You obviously mean “allowed by civil law” and not “allowed by the Church”. But this is still an instance of ESCR, and as such it is already on the list. Why have ESCR on the list twice?

ESCR involves the experimentation on and destruction of embryos. Human cloning involves the creation of human embryos. The artificial creation of human embryos is a different evil than destroying them. Both are on the list.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Give me an example of a moral consequence as distinguished from a harmful consequence.

Ask Pope Francis. He used the term.

And what is a non-negotiable evil and how does it differ from a negotiable one?

You are the one supporting “the list” of non-negotiables, so you should be the one explaining the difference, not me. Personally, I am with Pope Francis on this. I don’t see how the things mentioned on the list can be qualitatively distinguished from similar things not on the list in forming our response to them. (I am forced to use vague terms like “things” because if I say “issues” or “evils” you will jump all over me about the exact definition of these words, as you have done.)

 

[Ender]

Ask Pope Francis. He used the term.

Since you won’t respond I’ll assume it’s because you don’t know either.

You are the one supporting “the list” of non-negotiables, so you should be the one explaining the difference, not me.

Well you keep changing (and mangling) the use of the term. The list identifies issues that are evil, about which there can be no debate, no negotiation on how and when they are proper. Unlike most political issues where negotiation between the opposing parties is valid, for the issues on the list such negotiation is precluded by the nature of the acts themselves.

Personally, I am with Pope Francis on this.

You’re not with Pope Francis if you can’t even explain what he said, especially when what he reportedly said doesn’t apply to the point being discussed.

I don’t see how the things mentioned on the list can be qualitatively distinguished from similar things not on the list in forming our response to them.

There are no “similar things” not on the list. And while you may be unable to qualitatively distinguish one evil from another, such a difference is acknowledged by the church. ("*Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.")

Ender *

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are no “similar things” not on the list. And while you may be unable to qualitatively distinguish one evil from another, such a difference is acknowledged by the church. ("*Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.")

Ender*

I said “in forming our response to them”. What you quoted stops short of saying what this distinction means to how we form our response to them.

 

[Ender]

I said “in forming our response to them”. What you quoted stops short of saying what this distinction means to how we form our response to them.

Some honesty about the choices actually involved would be a good start, as this is usually the first casualty when (e.g.) abortion is discussed as a political issue. When we vote for any candidate, we enable his support not just of those positions we support, but of those we oppose as well. We must take the bad as well as the good that comes along with it. What we are doing when we vote for anyone is saying the good outweighs the bad: we will accept the bad as the price of getting the good.

Those who support candidates who support abortion are in effect saying they are willing to accept the continuation of that particular evil in exchange for having their immigration (health care, budget, whatever) policies enacted. What the list highlights is that trade-off.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Some honesty about the choices actually involved would be a good start, as this is usually the first casualty when (e.g.) abortion is discussed as a political issue. When we vote for any candidate, we enable his support not just of those positions we support, but of those we oppose as well. We must take the bad as well as the good that comes along with it. What we are doing when we vote for anyone is saying the good outweighs the bad: we will accept the bad as the price of getting the good.

Those who support candidates who support abortion are in effect saying they are willing to accept the continuation of that particular evil in exchange for having their immigration (health care, budget, whatever) policies enacted. What the list highlights is that trade-off.

Ender

Remember, you were quoting Church teaching (“such a difference is acknowledged by the church”). In supporting that line of reasoning you must stick to what the Church teaches and not slip quietly into your personal interpretation of those teachings. The Church does not say “Those who support candidates who support abortion are in effect saying they are willing to accept the continuation of that particular evil in exchange for…”

Although your argument sounds very compelling when applied to abortion, it does not sound nearly so compelling when applied to some of the other “list” items, like same-sex marriage.

 

[Ender]

Remember, you were quoting Church teaching (“such a difference is acknowledged by the church”). In supporting that line of reasoning you must stick to what the Church teaches and not slip quietly into your personal interpretation of those teachings. The Church does not say “Those who support candidates who support abortion are in effect saying they are willing to accept the continuation of that particular evil in exchange for…”

The teaching I referred to was on the existence of a hierarchy even among moral issues (“Not all moral issues have the same weight…”). There is no correlation between Ratzinger’s statement and mine; mine was not an interpretation of his.

It should be obvious that when we choose person A over person B we are choosing to enable A to push his views - all of them, including the ones with which we disagree. I may opt for a candidate who shares my position on abortion even though I oppose his position on immigration, but when I vote for him I am enabling both positions. In that case, his immigration stance is the bad I choose to accept as the price to support what I see as a greater good. If someone else prefers his opponent precisely for his immigration position, he is choosing to accept the abortion position as the price to advance that goal. That’s just the way a representative democracy works. We vote for candidates, not issues.

Although your argument sounds very compelling when applied to abortion, it does not sound nearly so compelling when applied to some of the other “list” items, like same-sex marriage.

The analogy is identical even if the issues are not of the same weight.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It should be obvious that when we choose person A over person B we are choosing to enable A to push his views - all of them, including the ones with which we disagree. I may opt for a candidate who shares my position on abortion even though I oppose his position on immigration, but when I vote for him I am enabling both positions. In that case, his immigration stance is the bad I choose to accept as the price to support what I see as a greater good. If someone else prefers his opponent precisely for his immigration position, he is choosing to accept the abortion position as the price to advance that goal. That’s just the way a representative democracy works. We vote for candidates, not issues.

OK, that sounds like what I said too. But I would add one clarification. The act of “accepting his position on immigration” is not the same thing as the act of “accepting that his position on immigration will become a reality”. When we vote, we consider not only the position the candidate professes, but also the probability that voting for him will bring that position into being. For it is the actualization of the position, not the position itself that matters to me as a voter. For example, two candidates with only slightly different positions on abortion present only a slight difference in the chances for an actualization of abortions. So the rule of always voting for the candidate that is more anti-abortion, irrespective of any other position they may hold, is not clearly binding. It may be better to vote for the one who is less determined to outlaw abortion if, in so doing, I can choose a candidate who is very strongly against the torture of waterboarding, and the other candidate is very strongly in favor of it.

The analogy is identical even if the issues are not of the same weight.

OK, then let’s use same-sex marriage, and re-cast your argument as follows:

Those who support candidates who support same-sex marriage are in effect saying they are willing to accept the continuation of that particular evil in exchange for having their anti-torture policies enacted.

I think it is worthwhile trade-off.

 

[Ender]

OK, then let’s use same-sex marriage, and re-cast your argument as follows:
Those who support candidates who support same-sex marriage are in effect saying they are willing to accept the continuation of that particular evil in exchange for having their anti-torture policies enacted.
I think it is worthwhile trade-off.

That strikes me as a reasoned argument (although not one I agree with). What, then, do you consider to be the worthwhile trade-off for abortion?

Ender