R
Rau
Guest
I thought he already did. Post #196.
No other concrete act fits the events. Your creative description of the act could not conceal this.
- Status
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
moral evil - the aggressor is not innocent. The killing is in the means, but is physical evil only - we don’t require that that be solely in the consequences, though in some instances of self-defence, that is the case.]
As outlined above – the *concrete act *chosen in order to avoid the consequences of Zika is moral evil, not mere physical evil. I can licitly choose, as a means, to break down a door, or amputate an arm, or kill an aggressor [all *physical evils] where the Intention is good, and subject to balance of consequences. It’s OK for the good effect to flow from a physical evil, but not a moral evil. And yes – the typical expression of the PODE is not sufficiently prescriptive on this point.
To quote Pope St John Paul lI
“…the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” [Veritatis Splendor 67]
I have always paralleled the validity of the Zika contraceptive hypothesis on the same basis as killing is acceptable in self defence.
I appreciate you no longer justify SD on the basis of PODE. I believe your analysis of self defence above has weaknesses but I haven’t quite got my head around your principles as yet.
I presume you hold the killing is still indirect? If that is so then Ron would say the killing is a consequence of the protection. If so, what is the principle for objectively distinguishing object and consequence? Why cannot it also be said the killing is the cause of the protection (which is then a consequence of the killing).
If JP2s statement were to read as you want it to read then Vatican Confessional Advice on acceptability of material cooperation in a contraceptive act would be ruled out. Obviously it isn’t. The answer is of course that he refers to directly intended use of contraceptives.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I don’t really understand your point but if you don’t like my description of the object why don’t you define the object of lethal self defence and we compare the two?I thought he already did. Post #196.
No other concrete act fits the events. Your creative description of the act could not conceal this.
R
Rau
Guest
Which is just what your act, properly described, entails.
I can’t comment further of the self-defence thing just now (falling asleep…). But I do recall Ron Conte has a treatment somewhere on his web site which I think was pretty good. Google something like Ron Conte Self defence intentional killing, to find it.
R
Rau
Guest
The moral object is a proximate end with moral nature. Killing an aggressor is not moral evil. Your act, on the other hand, is ordered to a moral evil, for a good intention.
I gotta go. Hopefully Ron will be along later. I believe, on this occasion, we sing from the same hymn sheet.
R
Rau
Guest
Not me! I think I said Pope St JP2 would call it “creative”!
The issue with your Zika analysis was you set up an artificial description of the act, omitting mention of an essential element which we instantly recognise as a moral evil. No such act can be moral. To don the condom, or swallow the pill, in anticipation of conjugal relations, is ordered to a moral evil (deprivation of procreative meaning…). We can’t look past that to the good ends in mind.
In the act of lethal self-defence, even when the “lethality” is the intended means, there isn’t moral evil. “Killing” is not an act with moral content. “Killing an aggressor” is not morally evil (with the usual provisos).
The moral object is a proximate end, in terms of morality, toward which the act is ordered. What question of *morality *is evident in an act of lethal self-defence? It is saving a life. Are you concerned we “skip over or look past” the “killing”? Were killing an aggressor morally evil (or good), we would not skip past it. But it is neither morally good nor morally bad. The deprivation of life is a physical evil in the consequences. The proximate end, the moral good to which the lethal blow is ordered, is saving our life.
I found that Conte piece on killing if interested:
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/killing-in-self-defense-intention/
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The use of condoms or oral contraceptives in the case of the Zika virus does not directly treat the virus, nor does it directly prevent birth defects. Contraceptives, in this case, prevent conception, which then excludes birth defects because no prenatal was conceived. So the good intended end of excluding birth defects is achieved only by means of the proximate end (object) of preventing conception. Therefore, the prevention of conception is in the object, making the act direct contraception and intrinsically evil.
Good intentions do not justify the use of intrinsically evil acts, nor can intention or circumstances change the intrinsically evil act into an act that is good or justifiable.
Good intentions do not justify the use of intrinsically evil acts, nor can intention or circumstances change the intrinsically evil act into an act that is good or justifiable.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Rau thanks for pointing Kyrie, in the other closed thread, to my post below why Trent was likely mistaken in seeing little or no difference between abortion and murder due to incomplete understanding of reproductive biology. I am coming back to this discussion when I get a bit of time.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I would appreciate your yay or nay on this so as to understand where you are coming from.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Pope Saint John Paul II on abortion as a type of murder:
“But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth. The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined.” [EV 58]
and on abortifacients as a type of abortion and a type of murder:
Pope Saint John Paul II: “Among the Greek ecclesiastical writers, Athenagoras records that Christians consider as murderesses women who have recourse to abortifacient medicines, because children, even if they are still in their mother’s womb, “are already under the protection of Divine Providence”.” [EV 61]
Pope Saint John Paul II: “The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being.” [EV 13]
and on negative precepts and intrinsic evil:
Pope Saint John Paul II: “The negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the creativity of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” [Veritatis Splendor 67].
R
Rau
Guest
Contraceptives are objects, like knives, and may have moral use - eg. A condom as a water bomb, or hormonal drugs to treat acne.
“Killing” is a word without moral content. Murder is an act with moral content, and it is intrinsically evil. Intending (first font, as opposed to means) any harm is always wrong.
Post #208 explained this.
R
Rau
Guest
So I did! Pope St JP II made the point first however. I quoted him in my prior post.
R
Rau
Guest
But this is not sound as has been explained. Contraception to avoid Zika is plainly direct. The act is intrinsically ordered to a moral evil.
Moral evil would be the deprivation of life of an innocent in the object font. We don’t have that in lethal self-defence. We need an end “in moral terms” to identify a moral object. Objects have moral content. Thus, we may not kill arbitrarily for the sake of self-defence(*) - murder (which places killing an innocent in the object - “direct killing”) would be a moral evil unacceptable as means.
(*) We cannot kill an innocent (eg. some random child in the street) just because a villain says if we don’t do so he will kill us or our family. It may well be that we can kill the villain though. Contraception as you have proposed it (Zika scenario) is analogous to killing the child, but not analogous to killing the villain.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Ron this was a typo, if you read the thread I obviously meant contraception and murder.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Ecuse me
Thou shall not kill, the 5th Commandment, has no moral content?
However killing can be justified under particular circumstances.
Now the analog to “killing” as I am sure you could see if you really wanted to, is “contracepting” NOT contraceptives.
Contracepting does therefore appear to have “moral applicability” just as killing does.
And I further suggest it likewise has, in principle, exceptions just like killing.
Do you deny the Congo nuns intended to contracept?
They surely did, though indirectly and as a 2nd effect despite the fact the good result must always go through this bad means.
Just like killing in self defence
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
The use of contraceptives with the knowledge they will contracept is acceptable in some cases?
Do you disagree?
- Status