R
Rau
Guest
How things turn out, and unforeseeable consequences, are not material, but the reasonably anticipated consequences absolutely do matter.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
The validity of an act can indeed be determined by the expectation of the consequences to flow from it. If I do A expecting result H, and H is harmful, then I have sinned whether or not H is the actual outcome. If, however, I do A expecting result G, which is a good result, then there is no sin involved even if H is the actual result.
This seems to be Conte’s central argument:*It is always a sin to act when you reasonably anticipate that your act will do more harm than good.
*This is not at all controversial, but it doesn’t describe the situation we are discussing. I have stated that both of us are choosing the action we believe will do more good than harm, so Conte’s argument does not apply. If you think he says something else that makes your point then you need to extract it for me because I didn’t find anything I felt needed rebutting.
Ender
R
Rau
Guest
I take it you concur with post #332, and thus recognise that the foreseeable consequences bear on the morality of acts?
So, returning to capital punishment:
Prudential judgement may be required to gauge the consequences, and their balance.
The Popes argue (strenuously) that the balance of consequences favours bloodless means - which is to say that the loss of life of the guilty (when not even required to protect others), is a very great “bad outcome”. The Pope’s are arguing that we are growing in our understanding of just how bad. And they do not see any good able to offset it.
E
Ender
Guest
I agree with all of this. I have been saying for some time now that each of us is choosing what we believe will lead to the best outcome. That is, we disagree on what the consequences of our choice will turn out to be, but neither of us is choosing the worse over the better outcome. We are each trying to do what is right even though our choices are the exact opposites of one another.
The problem is that the consequences are indeed unforeseeable. If they weren’t the choice would be simple, but the choice is difficult precisely because the outcome cannot be known.
I agree that foreseeable consequences bear on the morality of acts.
Ender
R
Rau
Guest
And I do not disagree with any of that really.
Though I didn’t think I’d addressed whether I actually think Capital Punishment is on balance good (in the consequences) or not.The Popes are calling on us to appreciate the severity of “bad outcome” associated with capital punishment. There is at least one outcome/consequence that is entirely foreseeable!
E
Ender
Guest
No, they are saying they anticipate a bad outcome, and because of that would prefer that States not employ capital punishment. Or, if they are not saying that they are at least saying they don’t anticipate a good outcome and caution argues against using the death penalty, but they, like us, are basing their choice on anticipated outcomes, and as I have said, outcomes are anticipated but not known, and we are under no obligation to agree with their assessment.
Let me pose this problem: if it is sinful of me to oppose the popes on this question what am I to do if I sit on a jury in a capital case? If I vote for the death penalty I have sinned (according to the assumption that it is sinful to oppose the popes), but if I vote against the death penalty I purposely commit an act I believe is wrong…which is also sinful. In this case I am damned (figuratively) if I do and damned if I don’t. What am I to do, and why?
Ender
A
adrift
Guest
It seems to me that both Rau and LongingSoul are indicating that a Catholic would not be able to sit on a jury that involved the death penalty.
To serve on such a jury you could not say that you would do as the law requires. You are not impartial as your belief would not allow a punishment that the state might inflict. The Pope is saying that life imprisonment is the same as the death penalty so why would there be a difference in morality.
If it isn’t a mortal sin to vote for life imprisonment, why is it to vote for the death penalty?.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’m not American so it’s not a scenario that I’d ever have cause to seriously contemplate for moral duty. Speaking from the perspective of a state that eliminated the death penalty from general law nearly a century ago, the prospect of the deliberate killing of a person due to legal judgement, is horrific. I imagine that my feelings towards terrible criminals is exactly the same as the feelings of an American towards a terrible criminal… but I could never justify execution from a conviction that they ‘deserve to die’. Even in the case of the killing of Osama bin Laden (which I believe was a just act by the US government), the strongest sentiment I have to justify it was that he needed to be executed for world and US safety. For the common good.
As for Pope Francis statement regarding life imprisonment, that remains for further development by the Church. At this stage it has been raised by the Pope for examination but hasn’t yet been clarified by official teaching via an encyclical or in the Catechism. It makes sense though. Life in prison without parole says a similar thing as the death penalty. That some people no longer deserve an opportunity to redeem themselves before the community or to live free as a reformed person.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Blatant ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is directed toward the person who is giving the opposing argument, rather than addressing the argument itself. The accused person is oftentimes said to be unable to think through and understand certain ideas, but oftentimes the reality is that the side making the ad hominem appeal has a weak or losing argument. That is why he resorts to personal ad hominem attacks - to coverup the weakness or fallacy of his position. The reality of the matter is that God Himself has given us the ten commandments which indicate that stealing, lying, killing and dishonoring your parents is wrong, However, it is obvious that circumstances can change that. To rename stealing, killing, lying, or dishonoring your parents because of changed circumstances is simply another way of admitting that circumstances do influence the morality of the event.
A
adrift
Guest
How does imprisonment prevent a person from redeeming themselves? I believe a good example would be Robert Stroud. This was a violent man who contributed to society despite him being isolated in prison for most of his life. How would you decide if a person was reformed? Stroud by all indications seemed reformed.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I could only anticipate what the eminent Catholic theologians might explain, but if a person reforms and repents, in Catholic terms of redemption he would be regarded as a new person. An innocent person in Gods eyes. To continue to regard him as guilty despite reform and repentence doesn’t reflect a wholly Catholic attitude.
As for who should decide… I don’t think that is the critical element of the case for parole. Human judges are never going to be able to judge that perfectly and will inevitably make some mistakes. The Church’s area of interest is in how humanity grows in virtue by embracing the gospel ideals of hope and redemption into the justice system. It’s the case where one door is closed another door leads to illuminated options for more life affirming ways of serving human justice and awareness of mans dignity.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
There are a few problems to this. First of all, if a man kills his wife and children, and then soon reforms and repents, would he be regarded as a new person who is innocent in the eyes of God? Suppose that this repentance occurred a few months after the crime. Then should society regard him as innocent and let him go free after this brief period of incarceration? Secondly, parole boards have been known to make terrible mistakes. People who have been cleared by the parole board and deemed reformed and repentant have subsequently gone into society and brutally murdered more innocent people. Who is going to protect these victims? Shouldn’t the focus be on protecting the rights of the innocent, rather than weeping and having a bleeding heart for the man who has committed a terrible murder?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Hmmm, so which do we interpret lightly, “preferred” or “human dignity”. I don’t see how human dignity can be taken lightly
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Pope Francis would not be saying that punishment should be abandoned altogether… just that allowing for the possibility of parole after a long period of incarceration expresses a greater truth about the human being than a judgement of permanent lifelong incarceration without hope of a second chance expresses.
Human limits to judge are a reality in any act of justice, but what we strive to do by the practice of justice is honour the common good of the community overall. When you consider the practice of mass immunisation of a community, there are always cases where immunisation negatively affects some people, but what has to be weighed up is the overall good of the community. I know that there have been advancements in detecting which people are more prone to negative effects of immunisation in the light of solving this conundrum. We are able to make exceptions to the rule based on this advanced knowledge. The primary goal of the practice is the good of the whole community. If in the future its revealed that mass immunization has resulted in some weakened population made more prone to other diseases by it… then it would be far more prudent to abolish mass immunisation and tackle disease another way. What it comes down to is the good of the overall community.
A
adrift
Guest
You didn’t answer my question which is How does imprisonment prevent a person from redeeming themselves?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
John Paul II taught clearly that “It is clear that punishment ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.” That is from his encyclical on life. Perhaps the mercy to be shown a criminal can be disregarded when there is deterrence to consider.
**2267 the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. **
So the Catechism only deterrence out of the question, since it doesn’t involve protection from being killing by the captured murderer. One might ask if the Catechism has the authority to go further than the previous teaching on this however.
But can we say its settled that John Paul II taught you can’t kill a criminal for the sole purpose of justice?
**2267 the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. **
So the Catechism only deterrence out of the question, since it doesn’t involve protection from being killing by the captured murderer. One might ask if the Catechism has the authority to go further than the previous teaching on this however.
But can we say its settled that John Paul II taught you can’t kill a criminal for the sole purpose of justice?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
When Catholic literature refers to ‘redeeming’ oneself it doesn’t mean that the person himself does the redeeming. It means that he puts himself in a position to be redeemed. It is in the hands of Christ to redeem people and it is in the hands of the state to grant freedom of the innocent to the criminal who has reformed and repented. So while a person in prison can ‘redeem’ himself in Gods eyes while incarcerated, he is not made new before the community while still in prison.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
What disturbs me here is the prospect of a Catholic sitting on a jury where it is to be determined whether or not to administer the death penalty. It seems to me that the Catholic, if he pays attention to what JPII and other Catholic bishops have been saying recently, would be inclined to vote against the death penalty for theological or religious reasons?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I already gave several times a legitimate explanation for the verse of Genenis but you rather not recognize this or the fact that John Paul II contradicts what you’ve written
R
Rau
Guest
The taking of a life is not merely anticipated, it is certain. That this is intrinsically a bad outcome is accepted in our theology. The Popes are stressing that it is very bad, there is not a likely saving of human life to offset it, and in their judgement other goods coming from the act are also achievable with a bloodless act.
As to Juries, to find one’s conscience at odds with the Pope and the CCC is disconcerting. How can I answer but to suggest one make every effort to understand what is being said and to pray about it. As to whether one is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”, I doubt that very much.
- Status