J
J_Peterson
Guest
Killing a man isn’t forbidden. Killing a man with no just cause is forbidden. There is a huge difference between the two (i.e. the difference between a soldier and Charles Manson). There are no exceptions.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
The problem here is that you are using a faulty definition of “Act” and are refusing to change it.If you have an act that is forbidden except under certain circumstances that is an exception. It’s special pleading to say it is not.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
We are talking about killing, one human killing another. If you list all the reasons that one human would kill another only three of those reasons are justified.
So if the question is asked “Is the killing of a human being another human being moral?” The answer is, no. Except in these cases. Self Defense, Capital Punishment, and Common Defense. The three are exceptions to the rule. We can give them different names but they are still acts of killing a human being. The rest of the killings not covered by the three we call murder.
How about this for a thought experiment. The state deeming an individual a danger to the State and It’s citizens decide to put a man to death. This is deemed moral by the Church. After the execution the man is found to be actually innocent of the crime. Who now is guilty of murder? An innocent man has been killed. Is the prosecutor? The executioner? The Governor? All the people of the State?
Even though it was done with a good intention, a morally justifiable reason, an innocent man is killed. It can’t be double effect, there is only one man. It was the intention to kill that one man. He wasn’t collateral damage, he was the only target.
So if the question is asked “Is the killing of a human being another human being moral?” The answer is, no. Except in these cases. Self Defense, Capital Punishment, and Common Defense. The three are exceptions to the rule. We can give them different names but they are still acts of killing a human being. The rest of the killings not covered by the three we call murder.
How about this for a thought experiment. The state deeming an individual a danger to the State and It’s citizens decide to put a man to death. This is deemed moral by the Church. After the execution the man is found to be actually innocent of the crime. Who now is guilty of murder? An innocent man has been killed. Is the prosecutor? The executioner? The Governor? All the people of the State?
Even though it was done with a good intention, a morally justifiable reason, an innocent man is killed. It can’t be double effect, there is only one man. It was the intention to kill that one man. He wasn’t collateral damage, he was the only target.
B
Bookcat
Guest
We refer you to the Catechism, the Compendium and other like works. When discussing Theology (and in life) --use the terms and definitions as the Church does. It saves us from seeking to reinvent the wheel and from so many blind alleys and misdirections of thought.We are talking about killing, one human killing another. If you list all the reasons that one human would kill another only three of those reasons are justified.
So if the question is asked “Is the killing of a human being another human being moral?” The answer is, no. Except in these cases. Self Defense, Capital Punishment, and Common Defense. The three are exceptions to the rule. We can give them different names but they are still acts of killing a human being. The rest of the killings not covered by the three we call murder…
If a person asked “Is theft of something moral?” someone may give the answer – “no except in cases where for example a person can presume the others consent…etc”
That would be incorrect.
Why?
Because theft is never moral.
The taking of something when one can presume the consent of the owner is simply --not theft. Even though it is taking.
It is not that such is an “exception” but rather that it is a different moral object.
Legitimate Self defense where the force needed to be used at that time to stop the aggressor -had also the effect of the unintended death of the aggressor --is simply not murder. It is a different moral object. It is* Legitimate Self Defense*.
Catechism:
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
A duck is a duck and a goose is a goose. One must call a duck a duck and a goose a goose. Even if sometimes some observers get mistaken and think they are the same.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Such is would be an error in judgment or error in the facts of the case. It was an incorrect judgment and application of capital punishment. Where a person was judged incorrectly to be guilty and was not -which was unknown and unsuspected by those involved.How about this for a thought experiment. The state deeming an individual a danger to the State and It’s citizens decide to put a man to death. This is deemed moral by the Church. After the execution the man is found to be actually innocent of the crime. Who now is guilty of murder? An innocent man has been killed. Is the prosecutor? The executioner? The Governor? All the people of the State?
Even though it was done with a good intention, a morally justifiable reason, an innocent man is killed. It can’t be double effect, there is only one man. It was the intention to kill that one man. He wasn’t collateral damage, he was the only target.
Now this is presuming all was carried out correctly etc. There is always some culpability possible --such as in the case of a judge who did not care to do his job correctly…
(Also I would note that in the modern age where society can be protected via modern prisons etc --the Church that urges such use of capital punishment be rare if at all.)
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
A human life is purposely taken and no one is culpable? How does that work? The State has chosen to “directly to destroy an innocent human being”Such is would be an error in judgment or error in the facts of the case. It was an incorrect judgment and application of capital punishment.
Now this is presuming all was carried out correctly etc. There is always some culpability possible --such as in the case of a judge who did not care to do his job correctly…
(Also I would note that in the modern age where society can be protected via modern prisons etc --the Church that urges such use of capital punishment be rare if at all.)
2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
A person drives drunk and kills someone, is it murder? It wasn’t their intent. An innocent was killed.We refer you to the Catechism, the Compendium and other like works. When discussing Theology (and in life) --use the terms and definitions as the Church does. It saves us from seeking to reinvent the wheel and from so many blind alleys and misdirections of thought.
If a person asked “Is theft of something moral?” someone may give the answer – “no except in cases where for example a person can presume the others consent…etc”
That would be incorrect.
Why?
Because theft is never moral.
The taking of something when one can presume the consent of the owner is simply --not theft. Even though it is taking.
It is not that such is an “exception” but rather that it is a different moral object.
Legitimate Self defense where the force needed to be used at that time to stop the aggressor -had also the effect of the unintended death of the aggressor --is simply not murder. It is a different moral object. It is* Legitimate Self Defense*.
Catechism:
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
A duck is a duck and a goose is a goose. One must call a duck a duck and a goose a goose. Even if sometimes some observers get mistaken and think they are the same.
A company pours chemicals into the ground that gives kids cancer which kills them. Murder? Innocent people are killed.
B
Bookcat
Guest
(it is not about directly destroying an innocent human being nor is execution of a criminal doing such).A human life is purposely taken and no one is culpable? How does that work? The State has chosen to “directly to destroy an innocent human being”
Well if there is no one who is culpable then --there is no one who is culpable.
Such tragic errors can happen in life.
It all goes back to the nature of the human act and of morality, to invincible ignorance etc etc.
The State has made a terrible error in executing a person who they thought (judged) guilty and a grave danger to society.
B
Bookcat
Guest
It will fall to God and perhaps human justice too -to judge the culpability of such. Unintentional killing is not the same thing as murder.A person drives drunk and kills someone, is it murder? It wasn’t their intent. An innocent was killed.
A company pours chemicals into the ground that gives kids cancer which kills them. Murder? Innocent people are killed.
But even if something is not “murder” per se–that does not remove various potential grave offenses against human life etc.
B
Bookcat
Guest
We refer you to the Catechism, the Compendium and other like works. When discussing Theology (and in life) --use the terms and definitions as the Church does. It saves us from seeking to reinvent the wheel and from so many blind alleys and misdirections of thought.
If a person asked “Is theft of something moral?” someone may give the answer – “no except in cases where for example a person can presume the others consent…etc”
That would be incorrect.
Why?
Because theft is never moral.
The taking of something when one can presume the consent of the owner is simply --not theft. Even though it is taking.
It is not that such is an “exception” but rather that it is a different moral object.
Legitimate Self defense where the force needed to be used at that time to stop the aggressor -had also the effect of the unintended death of the aggressor --is simply not murder. It is a different moral object. It is* Legitimate Self Defense*.
Catechism:
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
A duck is a duck and a goose is a goose. One must call a duck a duck and a goose a goose. Even if sometimes some observers get mistaken and think they are the same.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
I’m not asking about human law. I’m asking about the morality.It will fall to God and perhaps human justice too -to judge the culpability of such. Unintentional killing is not the same thing as murder.
But even if something is not “murder” per se–that does not remove various potential grave offenses against human life etc.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
Are you saying we can’t know the morality of it? They are directly causing the death of another human. How could it be anything less than murder?It will fall to God and perhaps human justice too -to judge the culpability of such. Unintentional killing is not the same thing as murder.
But even if something is not “murder” per se–that does not remove various potential grave offenses against human life etc.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes that is what I am addressing. Morality.I’m not asking about human law. I’m asking about the morality.
No I did not say that.Are you saying we can’t know the morality of it? How could it be anything less than murder?
Something can be gravely wrong – seriously sinful -without being called by the name of murder.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
So you can take the life of another an it’s not murder? ( nor the 3 covered in the catechism)Yes that is what I am addressing. Morality.
No I did not say that.
Something can be gravely wrong – seriously sinful -without being called by the name of murder.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes – such can happen.So you can take the life of another an it’s not murder? ( nor the 3 covered in the catechism)
And culpability will vary as per the case.
B
Bookcat
Guest
If leave a skateboard out --not thinking it will kill anyone --and someone slips on it and hits their head and dies. Such is not murder.
Now there may be some culpability on my part here or there may not be. But I cannot be said to have murdered the person.
Now there may be some culpability on my part here or there may not be. But I cannot be said to have murdered the person.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
I’m not talking accidents.If leave a skateboard out --not thinking it will kill anyone --and someone slips on it and hits their head and dies. Such is not murder.
Now there may be some culpability on my part here or there may not be. But I cannot be said to have murdered the person.
Take the dumping of the chemicals that cause cancer that kills kids.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes there can be great culpability --great moral evil.I’m not talking accidents.
Take the dumping of the chemicals that cause cancer that kills kids.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
Is it murder?Yes there can be great culpability --great moral evil.
B
Bookcat
Guest
If say some dictator had chemicals added to the drinking water so his people would die. That is yes certainly murder.Is it murder?
If the head of some company dumped some chemicals into the water knowing the children down stream would die cause well he thinks there are too many of them…
Such would fit murder.
But a company who just thinks they are dumping some chemicals -then then later they find out causes cancer --that would not really go under “murder”.
There are all sorts of grave offenses that are not “murder”. And all sorts that are gravely contrary to the life and good of persons.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.