Hi Pallas. I’m sorry for not getting back to you, earlier. Spending a lot of time on forums is a struggle for me, so I’m trying to moderate it.
But I have problems with your phrase of “detriment to the well-being of yourself”. Everyone has dominion over one’s own existence and whatever you do to your own body is no one else’s business. Of course here we run into a problem. Since we are both individuals and social beings, there needs to be a balancing act between the two aspects and results of any given action. But actions that do not cause harm to others cannot be considered “evil”.
I’ll just say that there are theological reasons I disagree with that, and stop there. I don’t want to get into that debate.
Moreover, an action that causes unintended harm to others is not “evil”. As I tried to say before, the term “evil” is a very strictly defined category, not to be used willy-nilly. It requires “ill intent”.
I agree. It is why we have a distinction between second-degree manslaughter and first-degree murder. It is also part of the reason why the Catholic Church has a distinction between mortal and venial sin.
I don’t know what you mean by “free from corruption”. Would you explain?
Yes, I am free, for example, to read a book if I want to, but if it causes me to neglect taking care of my sick brother, then it is evil.
A few more examples: parting your hair on the right or on the left is not a moral choice. Choosing to walk to work or taking your bicycle is not a moral choice either. Buying a Big Mac and not a Whopper is indifferent morally. Drinking a beer or a wine at dinner is a neutral choice. I think you stretched the “moral choice” a little too far in your analysis. Please let me know what makes a choice “moral” in your vocabulary.
I believe that all those choices are morally good for the simple reason that no harm is done. It’s just that in those cases, neither choices are morally
better than the alternative. That said, I’m starting to suspect that that is more of a semantic difference than anything else. I won’t make up my own definition of “moral,” so I’ll use the Dictionary:
Moral: “of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical”
Yet the way I see it, a conscious feeling of “right conduct” does not have to be explicitly called into question in order for an action to be “morally good.” One can make a morally good choice without consciously realizing it, even if they are so trivial that they are taken for granted (ex: you do no harm to others by choosing to ride your bike to work over driving to work.) That said, I understand the way you see it and how you would use the dictionary’s definition against me, so let’s just say that we have our different opinions and stop there. I don’t want to debate my opinion any further, for fear of spending too much of my time on this forum. You are free to take this as a win, if you want to.
