Capital punishment debate: Dr. Feser and Msgr. Swetland

[Blue_Horizon]

Obfuscation. The double use of the word does not deflect from the valid point I made (Post #93) which provided the context for Post #95. Try to keep up Blue.

Rau you know nothing when it comes to handling the three font analytic model.
Your confidence in your moral theology prowess in that regard is frightening.

Your post #93 is the primary one I am actually critiquing…you are really the one that needs to keep up. What you deride there is in fact quite correct. .

You have become as unteachable as Ender re your deeply evident limitations.
I leave you to your own devices in your mutual blind talking to the blind with Ender in tht regard.

 

[Wesrock]

If “personal killings” can be both … then pray tell why “State killings” MUST be only one or the other?

Look to the reality not the pointing finger (ie the words “capital punishment”) …think about it.

It’s not that difficult. Sexual pleasure is not intrinsically evil. Sexual pleasure from rape is evil.

Capital punishment from __________ clause may be evil. But is capital punishment (full stop) intrinsically evil in itself? Anywhere and always? No possible justification?
Whether living in tribal stone age infrastructure or worse to present under any circumstances? Did Moses command intrinsic evil and further attribute this to God? Etc…

One might say that “capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, but it’s morally evil if _______ and may be bad public policy even if not evil because _________” Or one might say it is intrinsically evil, never justifiable.

 

[Wesrock]

Just to harp on my point, there wouldn’t be nearly this level of hemming and hawing if the question was “is sexual pleasure intrinsically evil?”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s not that difficult. Sexual pleasure is not intrinsically evil. Sexual pleasure from rape is evil.

Capital punishment from __________ clause may be evil. But is capital punishment (full stop) intrinsically evil in itself? Anywhere and always? No possible justification?
Whether living in tribal stone age infrastructure or worse to present under any circumstances? Did Moses command intrinsic evil and further attribute this to God? Etc…

One might say that “capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, but it’s morally evil if _______ and may be bad public policy even if not evil because _________” Or one might say it is intrinsically evil, never justifiable.

I must admit my head hurts.

 

[Rau]

It’s not that difficult. …Capital punishment from __________ clause may be evil. But is capital punishment (full stop) intrinsically evil in itself? Anywhere and always? No possible justification?
Whether living in tribal stone age infrastructure or worse to present under any circumstances? Did Moses command intrinsic evil and further attribute this to God? Etc…

Some will want to know more before answering !! Or demand the superset term “State killing” be used to muddy the waters.

One might say that "capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, but it’s morally evil if _______

Indeed.

 

[Rau]

…
I leave you to your own devices…

No need to go that far. A simple decision and commitment on your part to put the personal attacks on-hold would be well regarded Blue.

 

[Wesrock]

I must admit my head hurts.

I will attribute that to my rushed phone-posting while waiting for a table at a restaurant.

If someone asked “Is sex intrinsically evil”, one would say, “no, sex is not intrinsically evil. But there are circumstances when sex would be evil.” Someone who believes sex is “intrinsically” evil would believe sex is anywhere and always evil no matter the circumstances. Sex could never be justified. Sex would always be morally evil.

When someone asks "is sex “intrinsically evil,” you know what that means. There’s no insisting the question is more complicated because of unspecified circumstances, which completely misses the question being asked. There are circumstances where it is not evil and circumstances when it is evil, so it is not intrinsically evil. Perhaps none of the circumstances when it is not evil are currently present, but have been historically or could be in a possible hypothetical.

Asking if capital punishment is intrinsically evil is the same concept.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No need to go that far. A simple decision and commitment on your part to put the personal attacks on-hold would be well regarded Blue.

A cat may look at a king,
a child may tell an Emperor he wears no clothes…

Of course the difference is the Emporer, being human, will likely accuse the child of personally attacking his person when the child is actually just observing his erroneous views about the difference between being clothed and buck naked.

One only needs to actually wear a few scraps of cloth to recognise when another has none. Even the silliest of children can do that.

You my friends have no clothes on this point.
And like the child, I am trying to help you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I will attribute that to my rushed phone-posting while waiting for a table at a restaurant.

If someone asked “Is sex intrinsically evil”, one would say, “no, sex is not intrinsically evil. But there are circumstances when sex would be evil.” Someone who believes sex is “intrinsically” evil would believe sex is anywhere and always evil no matter the circumstances. Sex could never be justified. Sex would always be morally evil.

When someone asks "is sex “intrinsically evil,” you know what that means. There’s no insisting the question is more complicated because of unspecified circumstances, which completely misses the question being asked. There are circumstances where it is not evil and circumstances when it is evil, so it is not intrinsically evil. Perhaps none of the circumstances when it is not evil are currently present, but have been historically or could be in a possible hypothetical.

Asking if capital punishment is intrinsically evil is the same concept.

Indeed the circumstance of “marriage to another” allows us to identify the grave matter in the object as “adultery” (intrinsically evil btw).
The circumstance of “marriage to my partner” the object as “marital embrace” (not intrinsically evil if there was any doubt).
The circumstance of “consanguineous” the object as “incest”.
The circumstance of “none of the above” being the moral object known as “fornication”.

And we could go on like this to infinity just as Rau gainsayed in #93 below .

AND THE POINT BEING…these “circumstances” are clearly better defining/specifying the **object font **to a point where we can identify different subset classes of objects contained within the superset you called “sex” - which is indeed indeterminate … just like “State Executions”.

And just as people often use the word “sex” to refer both to the superset (“intercourse” which can be either intrinsically evil or not) and one of its subsets (the marital embrace which is not intrinsically evil) …

so too “Capital Punishment”. It can mean both the somewhat indeterminate superset meaning (“State Executions”) or a subset of these (those involving a just imposition of the Death Penalty which by definition are not intrinsically evil).

By CP Ender clearly only means one of the subsets of State Executions and, as observed over the years, regularly confuses the part for the whole and the whole for the part.

Whereas Rau keeps pretending the above “circumstances” are the 3rd moral font of a complete human act when in fact they are not. They are “details” that define the 1st font (the object) of that complete moral act to such an extent that we can definitively say whether it is intrinsically evil or not.

This is not rocket science for people who don’t have the extra theological burden of a set position or an ego to support that must also be satisfied.

 

[e_c]

And just as people often use the word “sex” to refer both to the superset (“intercourse” which can be either intrinsically evil or not) and one of its subsets (the marital embrace which is not intrinsically evil) …

If it can be otherwise, than it is not so intrinsically. Intercourse is not intrinsically evil - ever. The addition of circumstances to the general “matter” go on to characterize the formal aspect of the object - conjugal relations, fornication, adultery, etc. Only then can you start talking about intrinsic evils.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If it can be otherwise, than it is not so intrinsically. Intercourse is not intrinsically evil - ever. The addition of circumstances to the general “matter” go on to characterize the formal aspect of the object - conjugal relations, fornication, adultery, etc. Only then can you start talking about intrinsic evils.

Yes, that is the standard moral theology I too was taught.

Unfortunately Rau and Ender reject what they are not competent to speak on.

 

[e_c]

Yes, that is the standard moral theology I too was taught.

Unfortunately Rau and Ender reject what they are not competent to speak on.

If you say so.

As for this thread… I can tell you what, I know Msgr. Swetland, and he’s a good man and a very hard working priest. He is also too taken in by New Natural Law, which seems to be the underlying impetus for his abolitionist zeal. I think he got creamed in the radio debate and was a bit of a bully.

Dr. Feser’s arguments stand on their own. When Pope Francis speaks on the issue, fine, we should listen, but he is a steward of the Tradition and off the cuff speeches - or even prepared speeches - are not extraordinary magisterial teachings. As the current papal theologian is wont to say, the magisterium is ex cathedra, not “ex finestra.”

 

[Rau]

A cat may look at a king,
a child may tell an Emperor he wears no clothes…

Of course the difference is the Emporer, being human, will likely accuse the child of personally attacking his person when the child is actually just observing his erroneous views about the difference between being clothed and buck naked.

One only needs to actually wear a few scraps of cloth to recognise when another has none. Even the silliest of children can do that.

You my friends have no clothes on this point.
And like the child, I am trying to help you.

Children speak with emperor’s rarely, or in stories. You speak rather more prolifically on these forums, and to a recognisable pattern Blue. It’s not about helping.

 

[Rau]

…Whereas Rau keeps pretending the above “circumstances” are the 3rd moral font of a complete human act…

I said no such thing. I said ‘innocent’ is not a 3rd font ‘circumstance’. [You then sought to obfuscate by asserting a different usage of ‘circumstance’.]

I rejected your proposition to take matters that truly are 3rd font circumstances and role them into the object such that the complete act might then (by your usage) be termed “intrinsically evil”. Such would readily provide an infinite set of complete acts to be called “intrinsically evil”, and somewhat nullifies the “intrinsic” part.
*
80. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.* [Veritatis Splendor]

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you say so.

As for this thread… I can tell you what, I know Msgr. Swetland, and he’s a good man and a very hard working priest. He is also too taken in by New Natural Law, which seems to be the underlying impetus for his abolitionist zeal. I think he got creamed in the radio debate and was a bit of a bully.

Dr. Feser’s arguments stand on their own. When Pope Francis speaks on the issue, fine, we should listen, but he is a steward of the Tradition and off the cuff speeches - or even prepared speeches - are not extraordinary magisterial teachings. As the current papal theologian is wont to say, the magisterium is ex cathedra, not “ex finestra.”

All good, though a Pope is a little more than a “steward of Tradition”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I said no such thing. I said ‘innocent’ is not a 3rd font ‘circumstance’. [You then sought to obfuscate by asserting a different usage of ‘circumstance’.]

I can only go with the “theology” you have espoused in other recent threads up until now.
Where you specifically denied that the sorts of “circumstances” I similarly attempted to explain to you had anything to do with the 1st font.

Below you stated "If one keeps folding circumstances into the act itself".
Now the complete moral act has three fonts. Given your past theology it is quite reasonable to assert you meant the 3rd font still by this less than clear statement?

If you actually meant the 1st font that is refreshing - but given you also said,
*"… then there might be infinitely many “immoral” acts called intrinsically evil. What would be the point of that?" *
then you still do not seem to accept that “circumstances” (such as marriage or innocence or reasonable bloodless means) can turn an incompletely understood/described/specified type of object into something intrinsically evil…
or not. Such as “sex”, personal killings or, surprise surprise, State killings.

So really, I have no idea what you are on about if neither of my interpretations of what you stated is accurate.

 

[Rau]

I can only go with the “theology” you have espoused in other recent threads up until now.
Where you specifically denied that the sorts of “circumstances” I similarly attempted to explain to you had anything to do with the 1st font.

Below you stated "If one keeps folding circumstances into the act itself".
Now the complete moral act has three fonts. Given your past theology it is quite reasonable to assert you meant the 3rd font still by this less than clear statement?

If you actually meant the 1st font that is refreshing - but given you also said,
*"… then there might be infinitely many “immoral” acts called intrinsically evil. What would be the point of that?" *
then you still do not seem to accept that “circumstances” (such as marriage or innocence or reasonable bloodless means) can turn an incompletely understood/described/specified type of object into something intrinsically evil…
or not. Such as “sex”, personal killings or, surprise surprise, State killings.

So really, I have no idea what you are on about if neither of my interpretations of what you stated is accurate.

You continue to obfuscate. Good luck with that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You continue to obfuscate. Good luck with that.

What is it with you.

Whenever someone says things you cannot understand its obfuscation on their part.

When you say things others cannot understand and they make a sincere effort to interpret you…they are still obfuscating.

It really is time to leave you to your solipsism and your own devices .

 

[Rau]

What is it with you.

Shall we leave this as the last word?

 

[o_mlly]

If it can be otherwise, than it is not so intrinsically. Intercourse is not intrinsically evil - ever. The addition of circumstances to the general “matter” go on to characterize the formal aspect of the object - conjugal relations, fornication, adultery, etc. Only then can you start talking about intrinsic evils.

All human acts – speaking, taking, seeing, talking, etc. – when abstracted from their natural ends are so rarefied that the object of the will cannot be known. If the object of the will is unknown then the moral object cannot be known.

I would suggest the use of the word “qualifiers” instead of “circumstances” to describe the necessary additions that allow one to determine the object of inadequately defined human acts. I understand what is meant but using the same word as the third font may confuse some. As the third font, circumstances (thing that stand around the act) are not the “matter” of the act and are only secondary, that is, in themselves do not determine the morality of the act.

Is there a knowable moral object to the act of capital punishment? No.
Is there a knowable moral object to the act of capital punishment in a state that has other bloodless means to punish and protect? Yes. (If the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined.)

We cannot put the existence or non-existence of “other bloodless means” into the third font of circumstances as that font never determines the morality of the act.