Are there unavoidable evils?

[fakename]

Are there unavoidable moral evils?

And what do you think your culpability in them are?

I think, tentatively, that there are: you literally and strictly must get food or you will die, but the only food to be had is poisoned but with a poison that could be either instantly or remotely fatal.

But you don’t know which of the latter two effects, the poison will have.

So to avoid instant death you might eat the food.

Quesion: is this even a sin? And two, how culpable would you be for it?

 

[Armyvet007]

What? Please clarify.

 

[Castello]

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting a time and place where the choice is starvation or something that may or many not be poison. These dreampt- up situations are so far fetched, the Church does not have teachings for such fairy tale scenarios.

Scripture did promise the Apostles that they could eat poison and not be harmed, so, I guess you roll the dice and eat the poison.

 

[John21652]

Are there unavoidable moral evils?

And what do you think your culpability in them are?

I think, tentatively, that there are: you literally and strictly must get food or you will die, but the only food to be had is poisoned but with a poison that could be either instantly or remotely fatal.

But you don’t know which of the latter two effects, the poison will have.

So to avoid instant death you might eat the food.

Quesion: is this even a sin? And two, how culpable would you be for it?

Food sustains life, so poisoned food is not food that sustains life and therefore cannot be properly described as food.

Eating the poisoned food knowing that death will eventuate is akin to wilfully committing suicide and that is sinfull.

Eating poisoned food knowing death will eventuate could also mean a giving up of hope, or of despairing, which is also a sin. That, however, requires a theological despair and not just an emotional despair.

One should continue to hope and pray that proper, nourishing food, will turn up.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Perhaps take up Geophagy in the mean time.

 

[kalel76]

Are there unavoidable moral evils?

And what do you think your culpability in them are?

I think, tentatively, that there are: you literally and strictly must get food or you will die, but the only food to be had is poisoned but with a poison that could be either instantly or remotely fatal.

But you don’t know which of the latter two effects, the poison will have.

So to avoid instant death you might eat the food.

Quesion: is this even a sin? And two, how culpable would you be for it?

iI would say no, it’s not a sin. Life is full of risks that aren’t sinful. It’s not a sin to drive a car though I could get in an accident. It’s not a sin to swim though I could drown.

 

[fakename]

iI would say no, it’s not a sin. Life is full of risks that aren’t sinful. It’s not a sin to drive a car though I could get in an accident. It’s not a sin to swim though I could drown.

do you think that the principles of moral probabilism apply here?

 

[kalel76]

do you think that the principles of moral probabilism apply here?

it could. I think it depends on what you mean by remotely fatal. If remotely means i will die next year, then yes, I think they do. Also, what is the intention of the person in this scenario? Is it to feed himself or kill himself? I am assuming that the intention is to feed himself.

 

[fakename]

it could. I think it depends on what you mean by remotely fatal. If remotely means i will die next year, then yes, I think they do. Also, what is the intention of the person in this scenario? Is it to feed himself or kill himself? I am assuming that the intention is to feed himself.

It is to feed himself and remote means something like probably next year but maybe not.

Also, I thought that probabilism only applied to or ranged over questions where one had to decide whether a law or precept existed and not on questions where one had to decide whether a law or precept applied or not?

 

[kalel76]

It is to feed himself and remote means something like probably next year but maybe not.

Also, I thought that probabilism only applied to or ranged over questions where one had to decide whether a law or precept existed and not on questions where one had to decide whether a law or precept applied or not?

Regardless, i don’t think there is a sin here, even if the man is putting himself in remote danger. Consider the case of St. Damien of Molakai. He put himself in remote danger by living amongst the lepers. No one would debate whether he sinned by doing so.

 

[fakename]

Regardless, i don’t think there is a sin here, even if the man is putting himself in remote danger. Consider the case of St. Damien of Molakai. He put himself in remote danger by living amongst the lepers. No one would debate whether he sinned by doing so.

Let me correct myself. Probabilism applies to questions of fact which can also be restated as questions of law: “is friday over, so that I can eat meat” can be restated as “is it lawful to eat meat right now?”

 

[VonDerTann]

Fakename, with all due respect, please consider this.

This board is read by a LOT of lurkers who comprise the universe of web users. That includes atheists; protestants; those investigating the Catholic faith; anti-Catholics looking for ammo with which to trash Catholicism; those who are “catholic but way overboard” and who judge others and find them wantings; a few who think they are encountering demons, and a LOT of folks who profess to suffer from OCD.

There are even some normal Catholics who read and post.

Now, with that backdrop…What is the purpose of your post, about the relative moral evils of starving oneself vs. eating poison? For that matter, what is the purpose of essentially all your threads, dealing with other odd, esoteric issues?

Now, before you answer that, some ruminations:

1. “To educate myself” is NOT a good answer. In fact – it’s an awful one. Why? 2 reasons:
   a. Because others are watching, and because merely asking this question – and asking a LOT of questions like it – reflects poorly on Catholicism. Others will ask – Is this what Catholics discuss? Is this the level of Catholic discussion and scholarship? Are other Catholics all like this? Let me say – Normal Catholics don’t need to “educate themselves” as to weird, esoteric questions no one on this thread will ever face.
   b. Because the inquiry alone bespeaks some issue you have, and need to address, which an anonymous internet forum cannot provide.
2. Before you post questions like the above, consider - the Catholic Church does not, and never will be. an authority for how to answer all questions, no matter how weird, which you may encounter. In other words, your question, and a lot of ones I see you posting, can be answered with, “this isn’t something anyone really needs to worry about.”
3. If there IS an answer which you think is important, and which we SHOULD worry about, tell us what you think it is, but more importantly. tell us why the question is important. Otherwise…it may appear that you’re just trolling to start a discussion about anything at all.

I’m sorry to be uncharitable but this entire thread can be summed up – as I did – with “this isn’t something anyone really needs to worry about.”

 

[fakename]

Fakename, with all due respect, please consider this.

This board is read by a LOT of lurkers who comprise the universe of web users. That includes atheists; protestants; those investigating the Catholic faith; anti-Catholics looking for ammo with which to trash Catholicism; those who are “catholic but way overboard” and who judge others and find them wantings; a few who think they are encountering demons, and a LOT of folks who profess to suffer from OCD.

There are even some normal Catholics who read and post.

Now, with that backdrop…What is the purpose of your post, about the relative moral evils of starving oneself vs. eating poison? For that matter, what is the purpose of essentially all your threads, dealing with other odd, esoteric issues?

Now, before you answer that, some ruminations:

1. “To educate myself” is NOT a good answer. In fact – it’s an awful one. Why? 2 reasons:
   a. Because others are watching, and because merely asking this question – and asking a LOT of questions like it – reflects poorly on Catholicism. Others will ask – Is this what Catholics discuss? Is this the level of Catholic discussion and scholarship? Are other Catholics all like this? Let me say – Normal Catholics don’t need to “educate themselves” as to weird, esoteric questions no one on this thread will ever face.
   b. Because the inquiry alone bespeaks some issue you have, and need to address, which an anonymous internet forum cannot provide.

1. Before you post questions like the above, consider - the Catholic Church does not, and never will be. an authority for how to answer all questions, no matter how weird, which you may encounter. In other words, your question, and a lot of ones I see you posting, can be answered with, “this isn’t something anyone really needs to worry about.”

1. If there IS an answer which you think is important, and which we SHOULD worry about, tell us what you think it is, but more importantly. tell us why the question is important. Otherwise…it may appear that you’re just trolling to start a discussion about anything at all.

I’m sorry to be uncharitable but this entire thread can be summed up – as I did – with “this isn’t something anyone really needs to worry about.”

(1) the majority of people who are turned off from Catholicism aren’t turned off from Catholicism by absurd question-asking because so few people even ask these questions.
And if they were turned-off, then they should just “get over it” since life is filled with “absurd” questions (it’s called theology) and if everyone just disregarded anyone who asked a question that they personally thought was absurd then how could one learn anything or see anything from someone else’s point of view or indeed, even sympathize with weird people?

(2) Esoteric questions, as such, are my personal problems since I have a very philosophical personality.

(3) This particular question is especially practical though, because many others are allergic or exposed to certain things or toxins which cannot be seen and are possibly, or even probably fatally dangerous at some future date. For instance, lead used to be a popular sweetener. But things like gluten or something else considered by some people to be toxic are also ubiquitous today. So if one cannot immediately and right now avoid all traces of gluten in something that you are eating, then what should one do, should one not eat dinner today or even tomorrow? So you can see that this is eminently practical and it is not a solicitation for medical advice but rather a question on moral theory.

 

[gem4truth]

it is not a sin, as long as you are not doing it to commit suicide.

 

[VonDerTann]

Fakename, so few people ask these questions because it’s abnormal to ask them.

Now it’s becoming “the moral theology of eating lead as a sweetner.”

This is NOT the moral theology of the same religion that gave the world Thomas Aquinas. This is not “moral theology” at all. It’s “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”

 

[fakename]

Fakename, so few people ask these questions because it’s abnormal to ask them.

Now it’s becoming “the moral theology of eating lead as a sweetner.”

This is NOT the moral theology of the same religion that gave the world Thomas Aquinas. This is not “moral theology” at all. It’s “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”

how is it not moral theology, that is, an application of moral theology?

as for “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”, that question can probably be answered which just goes to show that no question is unambiguously ridiculous, or rather, that they are ridiculous according to the standard of one’s knowledge which is question begging anyways unless someone knows everything.

 

[VonDerTann]

Fakename, if you really, REALLY think the question “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” is capable of answer, I’m sorry for you, but further discussion will lead nowhere – about this, or literally any other subject you may post under the heading of “moral theology.”

Goodbye, and good luck to you.

 

[fakename]

Fakename, if you really, REALLY think the question “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” is capable of answer, I’m sorry for you, but further discussion will lead nowhere – about this, or literally any other subject you may post under the heading of “moral theology.”

Goodbye, and good luck to you.

well, one mustn’t think that the question is to be interpreted too literally; scholastics didn’t think that angels could dance, but the question could mean “how many angels can apply their power to the head of a pin?”. And this latter question is probably answerable.

I’m just saying that a question is unanswerable either because it is linguistically wrong (do right upper relation with?) or the meaning of the terms of the question are mistaken. But it is not at all obvious that the terms of any question are wrong or else no question would be asked and we’d all be right.

So it seems quite unreasonable to insist, on the grounds that the question was ridiculous and w/o proof that it was ridiculous, that someone should not ask questions which he/she couldn’t have known to be ridiculous in the first place.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

But things like** gluten** or something else considered by some people to be toxic are also ubiquitous today. So if one cannot immediately and right now avoid all traces of gluten in something that you are eating, then what should one do, should one not eat dinner today or even tomorrow? So you can see that this is eminently practical and it is not a solicitation for medical advice but rather a question on moral theory.

Gluten is a protein chain found primarily in wheat. It’s what gives bread its chewiness and is actually quite healthy if you don’t have an allergy to it. If you have Celiacs Disease then steer clear of wheat, but if not, then enjoy a healthy, delicious, and wonderfully textured baguette made possible by one of my favorite proteins.

 

[twoangels]

I think your analogy is strange and flawed. I don’t get it. I do think that there are situations in life where a perfectly moral choice simply is not available. For instance, we have an obligation to vote. If both presidental canditates support abortion equally, or if one who says he’s personally opposed to abortion but will permit the status quo, supports gay marriage and wants to cut all programs that assist the poor and elderly to the point that it’ll cause the death of the poor and needy and the other who is wants to increase access to abortion,is for civil unions and overall has a bread and circuses approach to politics? Overall you have to weigh the moral issues and go for the best one, but you’re still stuck with two very imperfect canditates who will choose some moral evils.