A hypothetical question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vera_Ljuba
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mikekle said:
That would be mind control
Click to expand...
Of course it would be. And I was asking about ONE specific instance, using ONE specific tool for ONE specific reason. Instead of answering that simple question, both you and all the others tried to derail the conversation, changing the goalposts and avoiding to attempt the actual dilemma. Why?

I feel like Diogenes, who was looking for one honest person. I am looking for one intellectually honest catholic, who is willing to answer one very well defined problem. And just like Diogenes, I cannot find even one. Pretty sad, actually.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
I feel like Diogenes, who was looking for one honest person. I am looking for one intellectually honest catholic, who is willing to answer one very well defined problem. And just like Diogenes, I cannot find even one. Pretty sad, actually.
Click to expand...
You keep demanding that a Catholic answer your questions while fully subscribing to your non-Catholic premises which you use to frame the question…

The problem isn’t a lack of intellectually honest Catholics. The problem is your insistence on being granted “givens” that a Catholic can’t grant.

Vera: If A and B, then Z? Amirite Catholics?
Catholics: We dispute all of A and some of B though…
Vera: JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

:banghead:
 
Vonsalza said:
You keep demanding that a Catholic answer your questions while fully subscribing to your non-Catholic premises which you use to frame the question…
Click to expand...
No, I do not DEMAND anything. I present a simple dilemma, and no one is under obligation to answer it. But it is the minimum of honesty to answer the question as presented IF you wish to participate. If you decline to participate, I will NOT miss you, that is for sure. To change the goalposts IS intellectual dishonesty.
 
GEddie said:
I don’t, but millions do.

I don’t know too many who distrust the medical sector.
Click to expand...
They should, because the medical sector is in the pockets of the drug companies and the insurance companies.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
They should, because the medical sector is in the pockets of the drug companies and the insurance companies.
Click to expand...
Well, then you should not go to a doctor. What about simply praying that your malady would go away? There are a few sects, who take God’s curative powers very seriously. They do not call a doctor, even when their child is deathly ill. When the poor kid dies, they say: “our faith was not strong enough”. Or “it was the best outcome. After all God would not allow someone to suffer of die, if it would not be the best solution for them”.

Read the catechism 311: For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.Of course the catechism also says that “one may not do evil, so that something good will come out of it”. It must be reassuring that the catechism blows both hot and cold from its imaginary mouth. So you could always quote the part, which is convenient, and pretend that the contradiction does not exist. All you need to do is practice “doublethink”.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
Well, then you should not go to a doctor. What about simply praying that your malady would go away? There are a few sects, who take God’s curative powers very seriously. They do not call a doctor, even when their child is deathly ill. When the poor kid dies, they say: “our faith was not strong enough”. Or “it was the best outcome. After all God would not allow someone to suffer of die, if it would not be the best solution for them”.

Read the catechism 311: For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.Of course the catechism also says that “one may not do evil, so that something good will come out of it”. It must be reassuring that the catechism blows both hot and cold from its imaginary mouth. So you could always quote the part, which is convenient, and pretend that the contradiction does not exist. All you need to do is practice “doublethink”.
Click to expand...
Whatever, that shows how ignorant you are. My sister is a doctor and is very distressed that the insurance companies rule the medical profession, and the drug companies bribe them. So much for the Hippocratic Oath.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
Suppose that the technology advances to a point when people’s thoughts can be monitored. If someone is about to commit a violent act (like a rape, torture or murder), then a device can be activated, which will make the person to forget that intent, so the act will never be carried out. Non-violent thoughts would not be tempered with.

Would you implement that technology?
Click to expand...
No. Thoughts are not crimes, no matter how violent. About to murder to what level? Thinking about a crime is not a crime. Taking steps to further the act is.

Depending on the level of detail this new technological device presents, one could inform the potential victim to alter their routine and/or skip town, thereby thwarting the end result without the moral question coming up. Even in that case, any attempt to take steps toward harming another is in itself criminal.
 
SyroMalankara said:
No. Thoughts are not crimes, no matter how violent. About to murder to what level? Thinking about a crime is not a crime. Taking steps to further the act is.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that is not what I was talking about… And according to the words of Jesus himself, if one merely looks at a woman with lust, he already committed adultery in his “heart”. Clearly a “thought crime” from 1984. But that is not what I said. Keep reading.
SyroMalankara said:
Depending on the level of detail this new technological device presents, one could inform the potential victim to alter their routine and/or skip town, thereby thwarting the end result without the moral question coming up. Even in that case, any attempt to take steps toward harming another is in itself criminal.
Click to expand...
Please pay attention. The words I used were important: “about to commit a violent act”. It means to wield a baseball bat with the intention to harm someone. Or about to pull the trigger of a gun. Not some idle daydreaming about kidnapping and raping someone. A “clear and present danger” to someone due to the intent of someone else. Also, I only mentioned to “make the person who is in the process of committing that violent act” to forget his intended action. Yes, it is mind control, so what?
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Whatever, that shows how ignorant you are. My sister is a doctor and is very distressed that the insurance companies rule the medical profession, and the drug companies bribe them. So much for the Hippocratic Oath.
Click to expand...
:clapping: To assume all doctors are impeccable is sheer folly.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
Sure, but that is not what I was talking about… And according to the words of Jesus himself, if one merely looks at a woman with lust, he already committed adultery in his “heart”. Clearly a “thought crime” from 1984. But that is not what I said. Keep reading.
Click to expand...
what? All sins are not crimes and all crimes are not sins.
Please pay attention. The words I used were important: “about to commit a violent act”. It means to wield a baseball bat with the intention to harm someone. Or about to pull the trigger of a gun. Not some idle daydreaming about kidnapping and raping someone. A “clear and present danger” to someone due to the intent of someone else. Also, I only mentioned to “make the person who is in the process of committing that violent act” to forget his intended action. Yes, it is mind control, so what?
Click to expand...
so what is, if one already can read the individuals mind, why only act at the 11th hr, last sec? Or is this hypothetical tech only work a half-sec before crime is committed, like mid swing of the bat or mid-trigger pull?? It does not work when the person is conspiring by buying these things, or while assaulting prior to battery?? There are too many holes in the scenario and wording to give a clear answer.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
Please concentrate on the problem as stated. There was not one word about the state. And thought experiments are not expected to translate into reality. There is no need to assume the existence of a state. The prevention of violence is the only assumption we make. Criticize the problem based upon what is explicitly given. Do not get into some slippery slope kind of analysis. 🙂
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I think my comments do illuminate why people have an instinctive negative reaction to the idea.

If the reasons it is wrong is based in reality, but you remove the hypothetical from reality…
 
tonyrey said:
:clapping: To assume all doctors are impeccable is sheer folly.
Click to expand...
I would always trust a doctor over God, if I would be in need of medical help. 🙂 And I am quite sure that you would run to a doctor if you have a medical problem, and NOT just start to pray to God.
 
Wesrock said:
Fair enough, but I think my comments do illuminate why people have an instinctive negative reaction to the idea.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. The most important reason is - I think - that most people are shallow thinkers. They do not realize that we are the targets of “mind-control” ever since we are born. Just think about it. Parents, teachers, friends, politicians, priests… everyone. Of course, mind control is not inherently problematic. It is just like a hammer; which could be used to hit a nail on the head, or another human.

In this thought experiment I tried to show that the so-called “free will” is not necessarily a good thing, and limiting it is not necessarily a bad idea. As with everything: “it depends”. 🙂
Wesrock said:
If the reasons it is wrong is based in reality, but you remove the hypothetical from reality…
Click to expand...
That is the nature of any thought experiment.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
I would always trust a doctor over God, if I would be in need of medical help. 🙂 And I am quite sure that you would run to a doctor if you have a medical problem, and NOT just start to pray to God.
Click to expand...
That may be part of the problem, not fully trusting God and instead running to man for help, Im not advising to avoid medical care over prayer, just saying mans lackluster faith may have something to do with why we do not see God healing people left and right in the world today…When was the last time someone even claimed they had a miraculous healing on the level of having a limb grow back, blindness suddenly cured, etc?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top