Error

[scameter18]

One problem I have always had, personally, is about error. Not moral sins, but just error, like dropping something, or some of the random genetic disorders people are born with, or errors of understanding, etc. Again not moral, just human error. This isn’t a problem of belief; I understand and believe why it exists. I just hate it. I hate trying to do something, and getting it wrong. Not because I’m morally wrong. I just didn’t do it right. This is just apart of being human, but it’s something that I hate, mostly because it’s always either random, or in retrospect I realize I could have done something differently and the error wouldn’t have happened. I just wish that the only errors in life were moral, and that this sort of error did not exist. It is childish of me to hate error like this so much?

 

[JDaniel]

One problem I have always had, personally, is about error. Not moral sins, but just error, like dropping something, or some of the random genetic disorders people are born with, or errors of understanding, etc. Again not moral, just human error. This isn’t a problem of belief; I understand and believe why it exists. I just hate it. I hate trying to do something, and getting it wrong. Not because I’m morally wrong. I just didn’t do it right. This is just apart of being human, but it’s something that I hate, mostly because it’s always either random, or in retrospect I realize I could have done something differently and the error wouldn’t have happened. I just wish that the only errors in life were moral, and that this sort of error did not exist. It is childish of me to hate error like this so much?

Personally, I believe that our physical nature has much to do with proneness to error. That is not a defect in any individual person. It is a defect in the lot of us. So, you’re not alone.

The “hating” of such errors is not childish. It is how we structure that which we wish to change (about ourselves). Do not let it get the better of you. Hate the error and strive to keep it under control.

The betterment of ourselves will happen, but, not instantaneously. It somehow happens over the course of time. Oh! and don’t wish to get older any faster than you are! Practice to do those things that control or improve what you see as errors. Practice and practice some more. Like the great tennis players. Like the great golfers.

One of the biggies particularly young people have is letting something out of their mouths that was unintended. Mercy! it’s hard to breath some words back in! But, a way to handle that is to simply say, "That didn’t come out right. I meant to say . . . " The more often we do this, the closer we will get to not letting mis-steps loose. That being said, it will only lessen not go away. Only lawyers are taught to weigh everything they say with such care that they rarely commit such mis-steps. And, when they do, they simply admit they were lying and beg the court’s forgiveness.

jd

 

[scameter18]

Thanks for the reply my friend, you hit it dead on. I appreciate the help.

 

[JDaniel]

Thanks for the reply my friend, you hit it dead on. I appreciate the help.

Oh my gosh! You’re not a lawyer are you?

jd

 

[scameter18]

 

[liquidpele]

Only lawyers are taught to weigh everything they say with such care that they rarely commit such mis-steps. And, when they do, they simply admit they were lying and beg the court’s forgiveness.

Wow… I’ve never heard of a lawyer admitting such things. I’ll concede such a lawyer is possible though

 

[Areopagite]

Well, I think Catholic theologians might be in debate on where the proximate source of error really occurs. Some of them say that error in a person is the result in a person’s will. Thus, intellectual evil is the result of moral evil. If that’s true, that would lay your frustrations to rest … because you said you wished errors would be moral.

The reason why some theologians say this is that, apparently, we only come up with errors when we are unsure of something. But theoretically, if we were unsure of something, we would (or rather should) simply suspend judgment, rather than coming up with a belief that is probably wrong. But oftentimes, we don’t suspend judgment, but come up with an erroneous belief to try and deal with the unknown thing in question. The only time to accept a proposition is when one has certainty about it. It’s a choice, they argue … if you are unsure about an idea … it’s your choice to accept the uncertain idea or to suspend judgment on it. The correct choice, they say, is to suspend judgment and the moral evil would be to accept it. Thus one’s error is caused by one’s immoral action.

I don’t know about this theory. I heard one theologian say this in an attempt to prove that the Virgin Mary was without error because she was without moral evil. I don’t know. I know that Descartes held this view about error … but Descartes didn’t exactly have all his marbles in a row. I don’t know. What do you guys think? I’ve never figured this out.

 

[scameter18]

I trust most modern theologians and philosophers very little, because they are capable of error. To me, if the catechism, the Bible, canon law or the saints don’t talk about it, then it’s probably best to just not talk about it.

 

[geometer]

One problem I have always had, personally, is about error. Not moral sins, but just error, like dropping something, or some of the random genetic disorders people are born with, or errors of understanding, etc. Again not moral, just human error. This isn’t a problem of belief; I understand and believe why it exists. I just hate it. I hate trying to do something, and getting it wrong. Not because I’m morally wrong. I just didn’t do it right. This is just apart of being human, but it’s something that I hate, mostly because it’s always either random, or in retrospect I realize I could have done something differently and the error wouldn’t have happened. I just wish that the only errors in life were moral, and that this sort of error did not exist. It is childish of me to hate error like this so much?

Does misuse of the word ‘dose’ bother you? Well, if it does, then you are going to have a terrible time on this forum. Because more than one person is using it in their posts in place of the word ‘does’.

Like you say its just an ordinary error, nothing special, but it can be annoying…

 

[Areopagite]

I trust most modern theologians and philosophers very little, because they are capable of error. To me, if the catechism, the Bible, canon law or the saints don’t talk about it, then it’s probably best to just not talk about it.

Really? I don’t know. I think I disagree. First of all, though, you seem to imply that the subject in question is not talked about by the catechism, Bible, canon law, saints, etc. I don’t know if that’s necessarily true. In fact, I think there is evidence that some did talk about it. Certainly Aquinas talked about the will causing error … but the question is … does all error come from a choice of the will (but, perhaps Aquinas even talked about that … I don’t know. Do you?).

I also am fond of rocky-road ice cream, but the catechism, Bible, canon law, and saints really haven’t talked at all about it. Does that mean it’s bad not to even mention it? Hmm.

I would say: ANYTHING is okay to talk about, except if it causes you to sin or fall into error. However, the criteria for that differs from person to person. So any truth in itself is good and worth talking about.

The Church has the fullness of truth … therefore, everything is fair game.

Maybe I’m wrong though… What do you think?

 

[scameter18]

Oh my only point about that was about issues of truth. Actually, the Church in a sense does talk about ice cream because it talks about eating too much, which implies that eating ice cream is fine, as long as you don’t over-indulge. But that is a matter of moral truth, which is what I was talking about. The list of things I gave probably do talk about error, I just meant I don’t trust infallible things very much in issues of truth or morality.

 

[JDaniel]

Here’s the problem: Let’s say that you are walking down the street. It is evening and growing darker by the minute. Ahead of you is a man putting something into his car in preparation for driving away. Suddenly, you scan across the street and see someone, hidden in the bushes, pointing what appears to be a gun at the man by the car. What do you do? You have the flu and can’t yell to warn the man at the car. But, you have a moral duty to prevent the man’s death by any means up to a force equal to the force being used against him

You reach into your pocket and discover that you did bring your gun, since you live in a pretty rough neighborhood. So, understanding that time is of the essence here, you pull your gun and shoot the guy in hiding across the street.

Later, you discover that the guy across the street was not a “guy”, he was a child. What seemed to be a real gun he was holding turns out to be a cap gun.

Is this “evil” or “error?” Is this “sin” or a “mistake?”

jd

 

[Areopagite]

Here’s the problem: Let’s say that you are walking down the street. It is evening and growing darker by the minute. Ahead of you is a man putting something into his car in preparation for driving away. Suddenly, you scan across the street and see someone, hidden in the bushes, pointing what appears to be a gun at the man by the car. What do you do? You have the flu and can’t yell to warn the man at the car. But, you have a moral duty to prevent the man’s death by any means up to a force equal to the force being used against him

You reach into your pocket and discover that you did bring your gun, since you live in a pretty rough neighborhood. So, understanding that time is of the essence here, you pull your gun and shoot the guy in hiding across the street.

Later, you discover that the guy across the street was not a “guy”, he was a child. What seemed to be a real gun he was holding turns out to be a cap gun.

Is this “evil” or “error?” Is this “sin” or a “mistake?”

jd

On the one hand, I’d say this: if you did not have full knowledge that the person had a real gun and that he intended to use it unjustly, then shooting him would be immoral. However, if you had the flu, theoretically you wouldn’t be thinking clearly, and be unable to control your vague, semi-rational impulses, and thus, if you do shoot him, you would not be culpable at all potentially … in which case, it would not be immoral, and not be an issue of morality at all. That is because, for morality to apply to an action, the agent (i.e. the doer of the action) must be in control of himself. It’s a basic rule of gun safety … KNOW YOUR TARGET!!! Don’t shoot at something rustling in the bushes. You can be put in jail if you said, “Oh, but I was pretty sure it was deer,” while it was actually a person. That’s no excuse, both in natural and human law (at least in human law in the U.S. currently … ).

On the other hand: what if there was an especially deceptive situation … like if you happened to see a section of a film set that you thought was real life and you saw someone [an actor] about to shoot another person [with a blank, unbeknownst to you]. It’s been made to look perfectly real … so would you shoot him then?

What comes into play here is studied ignorance vs. invincible ignorance. Studied ignorance is where you “should have known better,” in other words, you willfully were not diligent enough to make sure you understood everything in the situation as far as you were able to. Your ignorance would, in some way, be called sinful, as it could have been prevented by your will. Invincible ignorance is where you did do everything in your power to learn about the situation in question but you, through no fault of your own, still did not know an important detail … leading to, what would normally be an immoral action, but in this case an inculpable action … and not an immoral action either. Still, you made a mistake … an innocent one … you made an error … and yet not a sin. And yet, theoretically, if you truly were completely innocent of any neglect whatsoever … would you still have shot the innocent person despite deceptive appearances? Could the Virgin Mary, even, innocent of sin, and yet not omniscient, make that mistake? You know, I have no idea. I invoke a more learned person’s answer to rescue us from this predicament.

 

[notrust]

explains alot to me. though whats tabboo or moral to one may not be to another. awhile back nights templers under the stairs began to go global 6 billion homes a few months ago paranormal reasearch in the hot water tank. i agree delusion but what you see and hear you believe so i need to feed both they like souls so i collect any and all souls. morally im doing right even through revenge totally bliss in gods eyes. but the ones aware im taking their souls want war.

ill probabbly keep taking the power from the town so words dont have ill effects on me after feeling suicidle i know god will back me up to allow me to collect power so words are empty shells in conversations.

basically i may have a gun but instead i choose to disarm my so called enemy mabby by throwing rocks

i believe highly in disarming my frenemy

 

[scameter18]

Well, like I said originally I wasn’t really talking about moral error. Just plain normal error. But I’m starting to think it’s just a consequence of the negativity in life from original sin that gives each individual the opportunity to view the pain of error in light of the redemption of the world by Christ’s crucifixion, like all sicknesses, thus strengthening the person’s faith.

 

[JDaniel]

On the one hand, I’d say this: if you did not have full knowledge that the person had a real gun and that he intended to use it unjustly, then shooting him would be immoral. However, if you had the flu, theoretically you wouldn’t be thinking clearly, and be unable to control your vague, semi-rational impulses, and thus, if you do shoot him, you would not be culpable at all potentially … in which case, it would not be immoral, and not be an issue of morality at all. That is because, for morality to apply to an action, the agent (i.e. the doer of the action) must be in control of himself. It’s a basic rule of gun safety … KNOW YOUR TARGET!!! Don’t shoot at something rustling in the bushes. You can be put in jail if you said, “Oh, but I was pretty sure it was deer,” while it was actually a person. That’s no excuse, both in natural and human law (at least in human law in the U.S. currently … ).

On the other hand: what if there was an especially deceptive situation … like if you happened to see a section of a film set that you thought was real life and you saw someone [an actor] about to shoot another person [with a blank, unbeknownst to you]. It’s been made to look perfectly real … so would you shoot him then?

What comes into play here is studied ignorance vs. invincible ignorance. Studied ignorance is where you “should have known better,” in other words, you willfully were not diligent enough to make sure you understood everything in the situation as far as you were able to. Your ignorance would, in some way, be called sinful, as it could have been prevented by your will. Invincible ignorance is where you did do everything in your power to learn about the situation in question but you, through no fault of your own, still did not know an important detail … leading to, what would normally be an immoral action, but in this case an inculpable action … and not an immoral action either. Still, you made a mistake … an innocent one … you made an error … and yet not a sin. And yet, theoretically, if you truly were completely innocent of any neglect whatsoever … would you still have shot the innocent person despite deceptive appearances? Could the Virgin Mary, even, innocent of sin, and yet not omniscient, make that mistake? You know, I have no idea. I invoke a more learned person’s answer to rescue us from this predicament.

OK. I’ll go one better.

Let’s say you’re walking down the street and saw the same scene given in my previous premise, but, instead of shooting the person in hiding you opted to wait a little longer to be bit more sure about the person’s motives. Let’s say, after about 15 seconds, a shoot rings out and the man at the car falls to the ground. You quickly glance back at the person in he bushes to discover that he was a man, and did have a gun. In another instant, the guy runs off behind some houses and is gone.

Now, you’re inaction has left a man dead when all you wanted to do is make doubly sure that the person in the bushes was a criminal with evil intent. You had a concomitant duty to prevent the man’s death, but, you waited too long, even though it was merely seconds. Do you have culpability now?

jd

 

[Areopagite]

Well, like I said originally I wasn’t really talking about moral error. Just plain normal error.

My argument, however, or at least the thing thing I brought up to consider as a possibility, was that all error is at least a kind of moral error (in one sense) because it is you will that chooses to form an idea based off incomplete knowledge or not. Presumably, if you always formed idea when you had full knowledge of relevant information, and never formed one when you were unsure, then presumably you would never fall into error of whatever kind. That’s at least one theory on error … not just error related to how one should act or not, but error potentially regarding any truth.

I know it must seem annoying that I keep bringing up moral error when you repeatedly said that it’s not the topic you brought up. So I apologize if I seem annoying. I don’t blame you.

But I’m starting to think it’s just a consequence of the negativity in life from original sin that gives each individual the opportunity to view the pain of error in light of the redemption of the world by Christ’s crucifixion, like all sicknesses, thus strengthening the person’s faith.

I think there’s something there, definitely.

OK. I’ll go one better.

Let’s say you’re walking down the street and saw the same scene given in my previous premise, but, instead of shooting the person in hiding you opted to wait a little longer to be bit more sure about the person’s motives. Let’s say, after about 15 seconds, a shoot rings out and the man at the car falls to the ground. You quickly glance back at the person in he bushes to discover that he was a man, and did have a gun. In another instant, the guy runs off behind some houses and is gone.

Now, you’re inaction has left a man dead when all you wanted to do is make doubly sure that the person in the bushes was a criminal with evil intent. You had a concomitant duty to prevent the man’s death, but, you waited too long, even though it was merely seconds. Do you have culpability now?

jd

I don’t think you would be culpable, and I don’t think you had the duty to stop his death, provided that you actually were not certain of what you were seeing. However, if you were sure, but you made “doubly sure” under the guise of dispelling doubt but in reality out of cowardice, then you would be culpable. Those are my thoughts.

But, really, I don’t know what I’m talking about … much.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, I think Catholic theologians might be in debate on where the proximate source of error really occurs. Some of them say that error in a person is the result in a person’s will. Thus, intellectual evil is the result of moral evil. If that’s true, that would lay your frustrations to rest … because you said you wished errors would be moral.

The reason why some theologians say this is that, apparently, we only come up with errors when we are unsure of something. But theoretically, if we were unsure of something, we would (or rather should) simply suspend judgment, rather than coming up with a belief that is probably wrong. But oftentimes, we don’t suspend judgment, but come up with an erroneous belief to try and deal with the unknown thing in question. The only time to accept a proposition is when one has certainty about it. It’s a choice, they argue … if you are unsure about an idea … it’s your choice to accept the uncertain idea or to suspend judgment on it. The correct choice, they say, is to suspend judgment and the moral evil would be to accept it. Thus one’s error is caused by one’s immoral action.

I don’t know about this theory. I heard one theologian say this in an attempt to prove that the Virgin Mary was without error because she was without moral evil. I don’t know. I know that Descartes held this view about error … but Descartes didn’t exactly have all his marbles in a row. I don’t know. What do you guys think? I’ve never figured this out.

“And coming to her, he said, ‘Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.’
But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God’” (Luke 1-28-30.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Areopagite]

“And coming to her, he said, ‘Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.’
But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God’” (Luke 1-28-30.

Peace,
O’Malley

That’s an interesting passage you bring up … but I don’t think it contradicts the theory that error is a result of one’s bad choice to accept an idea based on insufficient knowledge. **There is a difference between ignorance and error. ** Ignorance is where you simply don’t have knowledge about something. And error is when you actually believe something that is actually false … when you think you know … but don’t. One is suspension of judgment, the other is a poor application of judgment. Ignorance can be possessed innocently (which would be invincible ignorance, as opposed to the culpable studied ignorance).

Now, Mary, at first, did not know what sort of greeting this was at first … and I would said it was invincible ignorance. However, she didn’t use her will to make a rash judgment on the matter immediately … that is, she didn’t judge that this vision was actually a demonic one, for example. She simply pondered. And of course, when someone has ignorance, especially in regard to supernatural phenomenon, it is only natural, and not sinful, to be troubled by it, for there is the possibility (for example) that it could be Satan. It’s an emotional and not intellectual response.

Does that make sense? Once again, I don’t necessarily believe that a person’s error is on account of the will, but I’d like to know … from someone who could verify or debunk it. I can’t debunk the idea, but it seems to lead to some pretty big questions … ones which I have a hard time even articulating and conceiving … let alone the answers to them.

 

[scameter18]

You’re not annoying me areopagite. Just making a point. To me, I don’t think all error is moral error. For an error to have a moral context, I think it would have to be sinful in some way, which not all error is. If an error is sinful in some way, then it certainly has a moral context, but if not, then it is just an error of existence. But I think that if you commit a moral error without full knowledge, then it is not mortal. However, I think that if you commit what would otherwise be a mortal sin in the sort of situation you originally mentioned about shooting a child without knowing it’s a child, I think that would be manslaughter rather than murder, because murder is premeditated. That’s why I prefer the translation of the commandment about killing to be “you shall not murder”, rather than kill, because if it says you shall not kill, then all soldiers are in a state of mortal sin, which would be unjust. I think it would be like if you were driving down the street, your breaks went out, you ran up on the walkway and killed someone. That wouldn’t be murder because you didn’t do it on purpose. You could say it was your fault because you should have checked the brakes or something similar, but that is more so self-convicting scrupulosity (sp) than true reckoning of culpability. This is just my opinion of course.