I think you just begged the question. Who gets to decide what is “necessary” or “unnecessary harm”? Some people think spanking a child is necessary. Some think it’s unnecessary harm (amongst believers and non-believers). Who gets to decide? This is right back to what zz912 just mentioned about subjective morality (as have others in this thread). It’s just someone’s opinion, and doesn’t mean anything when you get down to it.
Sorry. I can’t take that back. The CCC nos. 26 to 49 would help the OP a lot but this doesn’t seem like that kind of post so I didn’t mention it. Especially CCC no. 41 and 48 regarding perfection.
Is goodness preferential, objectively speaking, over evil? In other words, should we care to be moral, or does it matter if we’re not moral?
They don’t “wish to be crucified.” They wish “to experience the pain of hanging on a cross.” The two are different. Hopefully, you can see the difference between the two, especially considering only one leads to death.
To define evil so simply is childish: killing Hitler volitionally and knowingly harms him in a way that he does not want it do be done to him.
Care to try again, in a way that is neither childish or simple?You are – nonsensically – failing to distinguish between natural evils and moral evils. Let me refer you, yet again, to Aquinas’ thought on the question. Maybe, eventually, you’ll read it.
A cat is not a moral actor; neither is a child who is not yet of the age of reason. Who’s being childish in their argumentation now, PA?
Absolutely. This is a good point, my friend…
Semantics. They wanted to be TEMPORARILY crucified. Again, what is “evil” about fulfilling their desire? Because that was your argument.They don’t “wish to be crucified.” They wish “to experience the pain of hanging on a cross.” The two are different. Hopefully, you can see the difference between the two, especially considering only one leads to death.
To kill him before he committed his deeds would be murder. To kill him after he committed them would be revenge, which is usually frowned upon. Some might call it justice. Killing after a trial would be execution. Some people accept it as a proper procedure, others will not. Still the distinction is very important.To define evil so simply is childish: killing Hitler volitionally and knowingly harms him in a way that he does not want it do be done to him.
Natural “evil” is just a very ill-conceived expression. Just like “imaginary numbers”. It has only one purpose: “intentionally muddy the waters”.
DUH! That was the point. Just like a tornado. There is no “evil” without knowingly and intentionally causing unnecessary harm. Therefore there is no “natural evil”. Without a moral agent there can be no “evil” - which is “moral evil”, the only kind that exists.A cat is not a moral actor; neither is a child who is not yet of the age of reason. Who’s being childish in their argumentation now, PA?
Not “WHO”, “WHAT”? Reason and logic. Inoculation causes temporary discomfort (pain) in order to achieve a “greater good” - protection from a disease. If the same result (making someone immune to a disease) could be achieved without that pain, then it would be “evil”, because the pain would not be necessary any more.
LOL!
That’s the point – it is important. From his point of view – regardless from the ‘before’, ‘after’, or ‘following sentencing’ timeframes – it would still be against his wishes. Therefore, according to the definition you propose, it would be evil. So, you’re saying that ‘justice’ and ‘execution’ are evil? Yeah… good luck rationalizing that distinction.
Freely asserted, freely denied.
You misunderstand – or disagree – with the definition of ‘natural evil’. That’s cool. What you can’t do, of course, is deny that natural evil exists, simply based on your personal disagreement with the definition of natural evil.
Again, this is a disagreement on definitions. It doesn’t disprove any arguments, but rather, simply points out that we haven’t agreed on the bases upon which discussion might continue.
I was referring to the procedure. The point was that some people ask for the procedure, even if it will be interrupted before it becomes fatal. The participants asked for it, and therefore it is NOT evil to honor their request - contrary to what you said. It is precisely their assent is what makes the procedure acceptable. Crucifying someone against their wishes is fundamentally different from doing the same process while honoring their wishes.We disagree on what ‘crucified’ means, then. For all reasonable folks, it means “capital punishment by hanging on a cross.” That’s not what you’re referring to.
Many people would say it is. There is no agreement on this issue. I tend to agree with them, on the ground that it is not a reversible action. If there is a mistake, it cannot be “undone”. But if the victim would be someone close to me, I would turn into a rabid supporter of the death penalty, the more cruel the better. I am not afraid to admit that I am not fully rational.
Ah, your favorite phrase instead of an argument.
Irrational numbers, imaginary numbers are both unfortunate expressions - but there are no “moral overtones” to them. Even then they can cause confusion. And confusion, whether intended or not is never good. After all “irrational” had two meanings: “against ratio or reason”, and also the result of a “ratio, the division of two integers”. There is nothing “irrational” (unreasonable) about numbers like square root of two, which cannot be expressed in the form of p/q where p and q are both integers. “Natural evil” is worse precisely because it refers to something that is usually reserved for moral condemnation.I got the impression that you were a mathematician; “imaginary numbers … intentionally muddy the waters”? Guess I was wrong.
I disagree with the phrase. Harmful incidents happen in nature, lots of them. But to call them “evil” is just as incorrect as calling the cat “evil”, precisely because there are no moral agents involved. If you do not want to call the actions of the cat “evil”, because the cat is not a moral agent, why do you insist to call hurricane to be a “natural evil”, when the hurricane is not a moral agent either?
So, what you are saying is that not all harm is evil, and that some harm can lead to a greater good… Yes, that’s the Catholic position!
TLS is good, though I will say that as far as the Problem of Evil is concerned, I think that section in the book is actually quite weak, not because the arguments were bad so much as there was some gesturing towards arguments without much substantiation.
Yeah. Give him a copy. It’ll make him chuckle…
Quite a slippery term is ‘evil’. Used commonly to describe something that one considers to be very wrong indeed. Stealing an apple is wrong, but killing a child to get her apple is evil. And there’s an infinite number of variations on that theme between the two extremes.
Yes, I know. I would not want to disagree with Catholicism, whenever their position is correct. That would be intellectually dishonest. There are lots of Catholic teachings which I agree with. and lots of which I deny…So, what you are saying is that not all harm is evil, and that some harm can lead to a greater good… Yes, that’s the Catholic position!
Logic and reason are not contingent upon who professes it. There is no “whose”.
I am aware of that. Do they have an objective EVIDENCE to support their claim? Just because they do not want to be inoculated it doe not follow that the inoculation is harmful. Fortunately there are protocols which can be used if a procedure is harmful or benevolent. Some Muslim people object to have their picture taken, because they believe that such procedure is “harmful to them”. Of course that is sheer superstition. Superstition does not have to be respected.
Then how does logic decide what is necessary vs. unnecessary harm? I think you will find quickly that “who” plays the deciding role here, because ultimately, a “who” is going to have to interpret that logic and reason and apply it. Or can “logic and reason” apply itself without a “who”? And how exactly would that happen?
Whose protocols, and why do they matter?
Why not? According to your definition of evil, taking their picture is an evil against them. Are you saying that you are changing your own definition of “evil”? Or are you saying that people are not free to decide for themselves what is good vs. harmful to them? Which one?
Say, you and I have a question in common!
It’s always nice to see common ground (and I’m being sincere about that).Actually it’s not a “slippery term” at all to those who hold to natural law and understand what morality is, versus “relative morality” and/or “moral nihilism.”