- Status
R
Rau
Guest
That logic is wrong. And medically, what you describe is largely unheard of today. But nevertheless, you cannot murder an innocent. There are two patients both deserving the best medical care, and neither should be subject to murder.
B
Bahman
Guest
You statement is full of contradiction and my logic is not wrong. You either believe in medical system or not. You have to kill the kid if medical system approve the danger for the mother otherwise your act is equal to two crimes. You cannot possibly have two patients under your attention if you don’t have the trust on your medical system since you are risking the life of two person at the same time. So the only problem is to find a criteria to kill the kid or not. I go with 50%+ where the number indicates the danger for the mother.
R
Rau
Guest
I am surprised that you have posted for so long on this site and are unaware of the dignity of human life that Catholics accept. You may not murder. You do your best to save the lives that you are able to save, but you may not murder. The ends do NOT justify the means. There are other systems of morality/ethics/philosophy that hold to other tenets, but they are not Catholic.
B
Bahman
Guest
How you could show that your act of leaving a mother to die is not worst than murdering? You have not provided any argument. A moral law should be logical otherwise is not a law. That is true because the moral law in principal are the result of our understanding of what are the the consequence of our actions. Moreover you probably eat meat, vegetations which that is murdering too. They are simply living being like you. So your moral system simply falls apart under the assumptions that we should not murder!
R
Rau
Guest
No person acting morally would be likely to “leave a mother to die” - they would do all they could within the constraints of morality to save life.
Your statement I have bolded above expresses one of the alternative theories of morality (which are not Catholic) that I referred to in an earlier post. That theory is called Consequentialism. It was addressed by Pope St John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html):
*…This “teleologism”, as a method for discovering the moral norm, can thus be called — according to terminology and approaches imported from different currents of thought — “consequentialism” or “proportionalism”. The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter, by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the “greater good” or “lesser evil” actually possible in a particular situation.
The teleological ethical theories (proportionalism, consequentialism), while acknowledging that moral values are indicated by reason and by Revelation, maintain that it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition of particular kinds of behaviour which would be in conflict, in every circumstance and in every culture, with those values. The acting subject would indeed be responsible for attaining the values pursued, but in two ways: the values or goods involved in a human act would be, from one viewpoint, of the moral order (in relation to properly moral values, such as love of God and neighbour, justice, etc.) and, from another viewpoint, of the pre-moral order, which some term non-moral, physical or ontic (in relation to the advantages and disadvantages accruing both to the agent and to all other persons possibly involved, such as, for example, health or its endangerment, physical integrity, life, death, loss of material goods, etc.). In a world where goodness is always mixed with evil, and every good effect linked to other evil effects, the morality of an act would be judged in two different ways: its moral “goodness” would be judged on the basis of the subject’s intention in reference to moral goods, and its “rightness” on the basis of a consideration of its foreseeable effects or consequences and of their proportion. Consequently, concrete kinds of behaviour could be described as “right” or “wrong”, without it being thereby possible to judge as morally “good” or “bad” the will of the person choosing them. In this way, an act which, by contradicting a universal negative norm, directly violates goods considered as “pre-moral” could be qualified as morally acceptable if the intention of the subject is focused, in accordance with a “responsible” assessment of the goods involved in the concrete action, on the moral value judged to be decisive in the situation. *
***Such theories however are not faithful to the Church’s teaching, when they believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behaviour contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law. **
77. In order to offer rational criteria for a right moral decision, the theories mentioned above take account of the intention and consequences of human action. Certainly there is need to take into account both the intention — as Jesus forcefully insisted in clear disagreement with the scribes and Pharisees, who prescribed in great detail certain outward practices without paying attention to the heart (cf. Mk 7:20-21; Mt 15:19) — and the goods obtained and the evils avoided as a result of a particular act. Responsibility demands as much. But the consideration of these consequences, and also of intentions, is not sufficient for judging the moral quality of a concrete choice. The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behaviour is “according to its species”, or “in itself”, morally good or bad, licit or illicit. **The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species. ***
In Catholic moral theology, some kinds of acts (murder of the innocent is one such) is always wrong, not matter why it is done, or what consequences are sought.
R
Rau
Guest
Continued:
In regard to the killing of innocents, Pope St John Paul II addressed this in Evangelium Vitae (w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html):
*Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 51
The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. “Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action”.*
In regard to the killing of innocents, Pope St John Paul II addressed this in Evangelium Vitae (w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html):
*Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 51
The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. “Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action”.*
B
Bahman
Guest
You don’t pay any attention to my argument. My argument was based on the fact that pregnancy would kill the mother so keeping the baby alive would kill mother and baby killed at the same time.
I already provide an argument which you didn’t provide a counter argument against. That is very long reading for me and I unfortunately don’t have any time to comment on all of that.Your statement I have bolded above expresses one of the alternative theories of morality (which are not Catholic) that I referred to in an earlier post. That theory is called Consequentialism. It was addressed by Pope St John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html):
…This “teleologism”, as a method for discovering the moral norm, can thus be called — according to terminology and approaches imported from different currents of thought — "consequentialism" or “proportionalism”. The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter, by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the “greater good” or “lesser evil” actually possible in a particular situation.
The teleological ethical theories (proportionalism, consequentialism), while acknowledging that moral values are indicated by reason and by Revelation, maintain that it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition of particular kinds of behaviour which would be in conflict, in every circumstance and in every culture, with those values. The acting subject would indeed be responsible for attaining the values pursued, but in two ways: the values or goods involved in a human act would be, from one viewpoint, of the moral order (in relation to properly moral values, such as love of God and neighbour, justice, etc.) and, from another viewpoint, of the pre-moral order, which some term non-moral, physical or ontic (in relation to the advantages and disadvantages accruing both to the agent and to all other persons possibly involved, such as, for example, health or its endangerment, physical integrity, life, death, loss of material goods, etc.). In a world where goodness is always mixed with evil, and every good effect linked to other evil effects, the morality of an act would be judged in two different ways: its moral “goodness” would be judged on the basis of the subject’s intention in reference to moral goods, and its “rightness” on the basis of a consideration of its foreseeable effects or consequences and of their proportion. Consequently, concrete kinds of behaviour could be described as “right” or “wrong”, without it being thereby possible to judge as morally “good” or “bad” the will of the person choosing them. In this way, an act which, by contradicting a universal negative norm, directly violates goods considered as “pre-moral” could be qualified as morally acceptable if the intention of the subject is focused, in accordance with a “responsible” assessment of the goods involved in the concrete action, on the moral value judged to be decisive in the situation.
***Such theories however are not faithful to the Church’s teaching, when they believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behaviour contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law. ***
77. In order to offer rational criteria for a right moral decision, the theories mentioned above take account of the intention and consequences of human action. Certainly there is need to take into account both the intention — as Jesus forcefully insisted in clear disagreement with the scribes and Pharisees, who prescribed in great detail certain outward practices without paying attention to the heart (cf. Mk 7:20-21; Mt 15:19) — and the goods obtained and the evils avoided as a result of a particular act. Responsibility demands as much. But the consideration of these consequences, and also of intentions, is not sufficient for judging the moral quality of a concrete choice. The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behaviour is “according to its species”, or “in itself”, morally good or bad, licit or illicit. **The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species. **
So you need to resolve the paradox which I introduce. If your moral theology is given by God then there should be able to resolve any paradoxical situation all the time. You didn’t provide any solution for paradox yet!
R
Rau
Guest
You may well be predicting the **consequences **accurately. But as I explained in the bulk of my post, the morality of an act is not definitively determined by consequences alone, but rather by 3 components:
- the Intention (purpose) for which the act is done;
- the Consequences anticipated/foreseeable;
- the act itself in terms of its moral object.
You can read more here:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm
Vertitatis Splendor explains why Consequentialism - which is the name give to your argument - is unacceptable. I inserted a small part from it into my post.
I’m not sure I understand what you are asking. Are you saying that refraining from murdering the baby is equivalent (morally) to murdering both persons? That is false. We are not Gods - we have limitations. We can only do our best - and our best is to do all that we can and may to care for the lives in our hands. And that does not extend to murder - that would be to act contrary to divine and moral law.
Certainly there are situations wherein bad things will happen, regardless of the good acts we may perform. You can call that a paradox if you wish, or the reality of this world.
B
Bahman
Guest
Could you please provide a solution to the paradox provided?
Those bold part are not really a good argument at all. They are merely claims.
That is true considering the fact you could save the mother’s life. Leaving a person to die hopelessly is worst than murdering.
Doing our best is not enough. Divine and moral laws, if it exist at all should be able to provide a solution to any possible situation. You believe that your moral system that you accepted is divine yet you are not able to provide an solution to the paradox.
There should be a solution for any bad situation if there exist divine moral laws. You cannot defend your position hence your the moral system is subjected to serious question.
B
Bahman
Guest
So you think he provided a good argument allowing human being diluted with sins to kill innocents. That seems to be very problematic in my point of view. What do you think?Continued:
In regard to the killing of innocents, Pope St John Paul II addressed this in Evangelium Vitae (w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html):
*Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 51
The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. “Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action”.*
R
Rau
Guest
I have no idea what you are saying. He states that there it is never licit to intentionally kill an innocent person.
R
Rau
Guest
I have addressed the moral course faithful to the principles of Catholic moral theology. It is to respect the lives of those in your hands, which forbids killing either. That we are forbidden from killing innocents is an article of divine law. That law may indeed eliminate one course of action which could save lives - the loss of those lives is not imputable to us. The ends do not justify the means in Catholic theology - but they do in the system of morality (consequentialism) to which you adhere. It is not possible to resolve our debate while each of us takes a different set of principles as a premise.
That depends whether there was a moral option open to prevent the death. In your system of morality there is, even if the course of action is to murder another innocent person. Murdering an innocent is generally regarded as a bad act… It doesn’t become good (in Catholic morality) because we anticipate more lives will be saved than the number (of innocents) we kill.
How can anyone do better than their best? How can anyone be held (morally) culpable for the consequences of their actions, despite doing their very best?
What are the criteria by which you recognise a valid “solution”? What does “solution” in the context that you use the term mean?
By the way - if you don’t accept there is a God, if you don’t accept there are divine laws - it is not surprising that you come to different conclusions.
B
Bahman
Guest
Addressing what you believe is not enough. You need to find a solution to problem I raised. We have to options: Killing the baby and save mother’s life or letting that both die helplessly. Your belief system tells to let them both die. The kid dies anyway, so why we should no save the life of mother!?
Please read the previous comment.
It very simple, you kill the baby and save the mother’s life instead of letting both to die.
My main point was that if there exists a divine system of moral laws then it can provide an answer to any situation.
R
Rau
Guest
No - my belief does not say that. It says I may not murder an innocent, and I must render assistance to the best of my ability. I am not culpable for deaths that occur despite me doing everything morally permissible to save lives.
This is logical if you adhere to a consequentialist perspective of morality. That’s a view that says there are no moral absolutes - that morality “depends”… It is strongly opposed to Catholic moral theology.
The answer is to act morally - that persons may still die is a fact of life.
B
Bahman
Guest
No, your belief system exactly says that. You just don’t pay attention to my argument or you are trying to evade. So I repeat again: There is a pregnant mother who her life is in danger because of her pregnancy. If you don’t kill the baby then they both die. That is what exactly your system of belief dictates to you, to let them both die.
Hence Catholic moral theology is wrong since you kill both the kid and the mother. Hence consequentialist is better option.
We are not talking about may or might. We are talking about facts which define the situation. You kill the kid and save mother’s life or you let both of them die?
R
Rau
Guest
Your reason to prefer Consequentialism is that the consequences (here on earth) seem better. You see the circularity?
B
Bahman
Guest
Of course we are talking about what happens on Earth. Moreover your system of belief is subject of serious question which apparently you have no way to defend it. What divinity you are talking about when it could not resolve a simple problem!?
What circularity? There is nothing circular. You kill the baby and save life of the mother instead letting both to die.
R
Rau
Guest
There is a reason it is called faith. Faith in God that he walked among us, that he gave us laws…
I hope after your long session on CAF today you might find find time to read Veritatis Splendor. Of course, it takes as premise that there is a God…
B
Bahman
Guest
- Status