A question on moral absolutism

[FuzzyBunny116]

According to Peter Kreeft, there are three things that define good moral theology:

1. Right action
2. Right intent
3. Right circumstances

It takes all three of these to make a good choice. If any are missing, it is not good, and perhaps sinful. At least this is my understanding.

Thus, if someone gives alms, but only to be noticed, they fail number 2, and if they, say, make love to their wife, which is a good action, when it is medically dangerous, they fail number 3.

If, then, someone lied to hide Jews from the Nazis, they fail number 1, because lieing is wrong.

What am I missing? Did I misunderstand Kreeft? I’m afraid of believing that it is all relative to the situation and motive. If all that matters is number two and three, then doesn’t that equal “the ends justifies the means?”

What am I doing wrong?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi Fuzzy:

You’re not wrong. And boy, you sure are helping us to think!

I believe that lying is wrong. But one did not necessarily have to ‘lie’ to save a Jewish person. One could tell the absolute truth, for example, but not the complete truth. Other posters will have more documentation and better examples, but you could say, for example, if a Nazi guard asked you if you saw a Jewish person go by that you saw a couple of Christians go by (provided you had). You also might have seen the Jewish person but you do not have to say so. That is not lying. You told the truth if you did see the Christians.

Or to give another example, we know that suicide is wrong. Yet St. Maximilian Kolbe volunteered to take the place of a man who was condemned to death–and he died in that man’s place. In effect, he chose to die. But his death was not wrong nor would we indeed call it suicide; we call it saintly. A right action.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Yes, the people on these boards have much bigger brains than I do. I have too much free time, and have spent it trying to get things figured out . I’ve been spending a lot of time on some religion boards where atheists and agnostics seem to be the majority, so I want to get things sorted out.

I’m not losing my faith or anything, my mind is just having some trouble with some questions .

 

[Brendan]

What you are missing is the concept of Mental Reservation.

Mental Reservation occurs when the either the “question” being asked is really a social convention, rather than an inquiry; Such as when a brief social converstaion occurs and you are asked “So, how are you today”. It is permissible to reply “Fine” instead of outlining your woes for the day.

Secondly, mental reservation can be used when the person asking has no right to the information.

This second circumstance is what you are concieving. The Nazi has no right to know that you are harboring Jews.

The person harboring the Jew may say " I am hiding no Jews" but silently(mentally) add “in my shoe”. The statement was truthful; the person had no Jews hiding in their shoe, so no lie was committed. And since the Nazi had no right to the informaton, the statement given was also not a deception.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

What you are missing is the concept of Mental Reservation.

Mental Reservation occurs when the either the “question” being asked is really a social convention, rather than an inquiry; Such as when a brief social converstaion occurs and you are asked “So, how are you today”. It is permissible to reply “Fine” instead of outlining your woes for the day.

Secondly, mental reservation can be used when the person asking has no right to the information.

This second circumstance is what you are concieving. The Nazi has no right to know that you are harboring Jews.

The person harboring the Jew may say " I am hiding no Jews" but silently(mentally) add “in my shoe”. The statement was truthful; the person had no Jews hiding in their shoe, so no lie was committed. And since the Nazi had no right to the informaton, the statement given was also not a deception.

What about then, say, killing in self defense? I know that is not wrong, but why? Is it because they have no right to harm me, just as the Nazis had no right to know where the Jews were hiding? Or what about sacrificing the lives of a few innocents to save many innocents?

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Or to give another example, we know that suicide is wrong. Yet St. Maximilian Kolbe volunteered to take the place of a man who was condemned to death–and he died in that man’s place. In effect, he chose to die. But his death was not wrong nor would we indeed call it suicide; we call it saintly. A right action.

But wouldn’t the action of suicide, (which is truely was, but not in the conventional sense), taken alone, be wrong, and the only reason it was made saintly because of the circumstance?

 

[Alterum]

…If, then, someone lied to hide Jews from the Nazis, they fail number 1, because l[y]ing is wrong.

I disagree with the poster who stated that this is not a lie if one adds a mental qualifier. If we are free to add mental qualifiers, then we can say literally anything we wish without technically lying. Something doesn’t seem quite right with that!

I think, in fact, that it would be permissible to lie in this case, i.e., there would be no sin.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Here we are, from the Catechism:

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

So one may not murder a Nazi, for example, in order to bring the greater good of protecting innocent life?

 

[Alterum]

So one may not murder a Nazi, for example, in order to bring the greater good of protecting innocent life?

I’ll chime in here again You’re all free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe killing is objectively evil, as far as the Church is concerned.

EDIT: Actually, I think we can be logically sure of this, because if it were objectively evil, it would certainly not be permitted under any circumstance.

 

[Brendan]

What about then, say, killing in self defense? I know that is not wrong, but why? Is it because they have no right to harm me, just as the Nazis had no right to know where the Jews were hiding? Or what about sacrificing the lives of a few innocents to save many innocents?

Killing isn’t morrally wrong by itself, as it differs from murder, which is.

For example, if I was driving along a road, obeying all traffic laws and a pedestrian chose that moment to jump out in from of my car, and I struck and killed him. I think we can all agree that I would hold no moral culability in the death, even though I killed him.

So we can see that Kreft’s condition 1 was not met. My action (which killed the person) was not immoral. Therefore killing is, by itself, not an immoral act.

We must therefore look at intent and circumstance.

Murder is the killing (of innocents) with the intention of doing so.

Catholic self defense allows for the use of force to stop an attack, but it cannot involve the intent of killing.

If the attacker is stopped and injured, it is a moral requirement that medical attention be offered (call an ambulance along with the police)

If the attacker dies (my action of stopping the attack resulted in the unintended death) I bear no culpabilty. As long as my intent is strictly that the attack stop.

Does that make sense.

One of the things you are encountering is that you are using normal words outside of the context they are understood in moral theology.

Mental Reservation is not a lie, killing is not, by itself immoral.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

I’ll chime in here again You’re all free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe killing is objectively evil, as far as the Church is concerned.

EDIT: Actually, I think we can be logically sure of this, because if it were objectively evil, it would certainly not be permitted under any circumstance.

Then what IS objectively evil?

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Killing isn’t morrally wrong by itself, as it differs from murder, which is.

For example, if I was driving along a road, obeying all traffic laws and a pedestrian chose that moment to jump out in from of my car, and I struck and killed him. I think we can all agree that I would hold no moral culability in the death, even though I killed him.

So we can see that Kreft’s condition 1 was not met. My action (which killed the person) was not immoral. Therefore killing is, by itself, not an immoral act.

We must therefore look at intent and circumstance.

Murder is the killing (of innocents) with the intention of doing so.

Catholic self defense allows for the use of force to stop an attack, but it cannot involve the intent of killing.

If the attacker is stopped and injured, it is a moral requirement that medical attention be offered (call an ambulance along with the police)

If the attacker dies (my action of stopping the attack resulted in the unintended death) I bear no culpabilty. As long as my intent is strictly that the attack stop.

Does that make sense.

One of the things you are encountering is that you are using normal words outside of the context they are understood in moral theology.

Mental Reservation is not a lie, killing is not, by itself immoral.

What about God having the Israelites kill to take their land?

 

[Alterum]

Then what IS objectively evil?

You cited a few things: blasphemy, murder, adultery. These actions are objectively evil (supposing that by ‘murder’ we mean the deliberate destruction of an innocent human life).

 

[IanBoyd57]

Lying is only evil when it causes unnecessary harm. That’s what morality is. Every moral decision comes down to whether or not something causes unnecessary harm, or else it’s not a moral decision.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

You cited a few things: blasphemy, murder, adultery. These actions are objectively evil (supposing that by ‘murder’ we mean the deliberate destruction of an innocent human life).

So then even if one were to do this to save the entire human race, that would be morally wrong?

 

[Alterum]

So then even if one were to do this to save the entire human race, that would be morally wrong?

That is correct. It is never okay to commit a mortal sin, not even to “save the entire human race.” In that case, anyway, I think we ought to leave the saving up to God

 

[Brendan]

What about God having the Israelites kill to take their land?

The Isrealites were not taking land that did not belong to them. God ( who is the true owner of all land) gave that land to them.

The Isrealites were therefore repelling invaders.

If the Bashan, for example, had willing conceded to the Isrealites what was theirs, no blood would have been spilled.

But Og choose to try and claim, through war, what did not belong to him.

 

[Brendan]

Lying is only evil when it causes unnecessary harm. That’s what morality is. Every moral decision comes down to whether or not something causes unnecessary harm, or else it’s not a moral decision.

Not quite true. That is a concept called Utilitarianism.

A thing is immoral when it is an affront to God.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

That is correct. It is never okay to commit a mortal sin, not even to “save the entire human race.” In that case, anyway, I think we ought to leave the saving up to God

That doesn’t make much sense to me. How is committing an offense to God worse than an entire race dieing, which is also commiting an offense to God? How can it be a sin to blaspheme so that, say, my best friend is saved from some undo torture?

 

[Alterum]

How can it be a sin to blaspheme so that, say, my best friend is saved from some undo torture?

It’s very simple. If you blaspheme, you are committing a sin. If you refrain from blaspheming, you commit no sin. Nor is your friend committing any sin by enduring torture.

Morality is not an “ends justify the means” deal.

How is committing an offense to God worse than an entire race dieing, which is also commiting an offense to God?

The entire human race will die at some point. There is nothing evil about death.

You are correct to imply that offending God is always evil; we are called to never offend God.

"The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin…” --Cardinal John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, “Position of my mind since 1845”