Ethics versus rationality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, that certainly makes sense. Since the object of waterboarding is not to kill but to obtain life-saving information, why would it not be justified. Do you believe that nothing should be done to save others from being bombed to death when you could have saved them by waterboarding?
Your experts in the field have determined that there is almost certainly a weapon of mass destruction somewhere where it can do great harm. There are 5 people being detained and your advisors are certain that one of them knows the details of the weapon. And there is no doubt in their minds that the others would know as well.

It would be rational to waterboard all of them. Would it be morally correct? What do you do, Charles?
 
I don’t understand. Could you please elaborate?
A sociopath feels no guilt when he makes an unethical move. The move is made using either reason or emotion. A sociopath has an unformed or ill formed conscience.

The short answer to your question is that the guilty feeling is your conscience telling you that you care about something you’ve done that you think is wrong wether the decision was made using reason (rationale) or emotion.

If this was not the case we would all be sociopaths.
 
Example like, to murder someone to save life of others from his/her cruelty. Another example like, murdering someone who is in very complicated medical situation.
Ethics is defined as a set of fixed moral principles that govern human behavior. Human is a rational being and his decision is rational too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right.
I will not say yet if I consider ethical or unethical the behaviors that you have described above. But as you think they are rational, it makes me think that identifying a goal and selecting one of the means that permit you obtain it, is what you call “rational”: someone is in a very complicated medical situation; you want to solve it; you kill him. Someone is being cruel with others; you want to combat cruelty; you kill him. You are looking for someone; and you know he is hidden inside a building; you demolish the building. And so on…

Then, perhaps we can say that rationality admits degrees, and that some actions are less rational than others. At any rate, coming back to your original question, I would say that we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong -though rational-, precisely because they are ethically wrong. You might be proud of your rationality, but you should feel shame because your action was ethically wrong.
 
This from the *Summa Theologica *of Thomas Aquinas commenting on the question whether heretics should be tolerated:

"I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

True, Thomas was not the formal voice of the Catholic Church. But there was no formal Catechism of the Catholic Church that we have today.

I would place waterboarding not under the topic of torture but rather under the topic of a justifiable weapon used for self defense in a just war scenario. The war we are engaged in with Radical Islam, whether declared or undeclared by Congress, seems to me a just war, and all the more so an immediate necessity in the instance of attempting to stop an imminent bombing of the innocents.

Waterboarding is, moreover, covered by the natural law principle of choosing the lesser of two evils, which I believe Pope Francis recently invoked but I can’t remember the source or the issue he referenced.
In other words the Church does not teach what you stated.
 
But the reasoning can be wrong and still no guilt occurs. In some societies cannibalism was (is?) accepted behavior. By their own unhealthy logic, cannibal ethics permitted the capturing, killing and eating of other humans. I do not believe the cannibals felt any guilt as their minds and stomachs were in agreement, in accord.

Guilt as a disposition only occurs when the mind and the action of the actor are discordant, when one knows or thinks that one has done something bad or wrong, something unethical.
Yes, but the objective of this thread is about an action which is ethically wrong but rationally right.
 
A sociopath feels no guilt when he makes an unethical move. The move is made using either reason or emotion. A sociopath has an unformed or ill formed conscience.

The short answer to your question is that the guilty feeling is your conscience telling you that you care about something you’ve done that you think is wrong wether the decision was made using reason (rationale) or emotion.

If this was not the case we would all be sociopaths.
You don’t need to be a sociopath in order to act based on rationality rather than ethics.
 
I will not say yet if I consider ethical or unethical the behaviors that you have described above. But as you think they are rational, it makes me think that identifying a goal and selecting one of the means that permit you obtain it, is what you call “rational”: someone is in a very complicated medical situation; you want to solve it; you kill him. Someone is being cruel with others; you want to combat cruelty; you kill him. You are looking for someone; and you know he is hidden inside a building; you demolish the building. And so on…

Then, perhaps we can say that rationality admits degrees, and that some actions are less rational than others. At any rate, coming back to your original question, I would say that we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong -though rational-, precisely because they are ethically wrong. You might be proud of your rationality, but you should feel shame because your action was ethically wrong.
Why we accept a set of fixed principals as ethics? What is our criteria? Our accepted principals could be occasionally wrong depending on the situation.
 
More silly putty logic, I’m afraid.

The moral context of MATTHEW 25 is to assuage the suffering of the unfortunate. It is not about assuaging the suffering of those who are about to kill us if they can. 🤷

Christ does not require us to assent to be murdered if we can prevent the murdering.
It was Michelle Arnold who linked waterboarding with Matt 25, in the article I linked. She’s a staff apologist here at Catholic Answers, so you can send her a message with your silly putty comment.

Waterboarding is not self defense, since self defense doesn’t involve premeditated cruelty.

Nor does Matt 25 somehow magically not apply if you yourself create the suffering of the unfortunate.
 
Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also require that we must consent to be murdered when we can do something effective to prevent the murder? :confused:
Waterboarding isn’t self defense, since self defense doesn’t involve premeditated cruelty.

There are no exceptions to UDHR article 5. If you make an exception to allow cruel, inhuman treatment (which btw would mean you must also allow rape as a moral interrogation technique), then you’re left with no argument to stop others making exceptions elsewhere, to justify sex slavery or anything else:

*"Article 4. - No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5. - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
 
I don’t believe the Church has declared itself on waterboarding.

On the other hand, the Church regularly advocated torture and execution for heresy during the Inquisition. 🤷
With God, everything is permitted.

Unless there’s a specific CCC sentence prohibiting it. Are you a contract lawyer or something? Secular morality is looking better and better.

btw, JPII apologized for the past:

*“We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed toward followers of other religions,” said Pope John Paul II, dressed in the purple robes of Lent.

The phrase “violence in the service of truth” is an often-used reference to the treatment of heretics during the Inquisition, the Crusades, and forced conversions of native peoples.
And Pope Francis condemns all torture:

*"Torturing people is a mortal sin. It’s a very serious sin.”

"I invite all Christians to engage and collaborate in abolishing torture and to support victims and their families.”
 
Ethics is defined as a set of fixed moral principles that govern human behavior. Human is a rational being and his decision is rational too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right.
It appears some would say no action is categorically wrong if its consequences might serve the greater good.
 
Yes, but the objective of this thread is about an action which is ethically wrong but rationally right.
My point, perhaps poorly made, is that such cognitive dissonance whether from right reason or faulty reason cannot happen.

Our reason determines our ethics - right or wrong, Guilt as a disposition occurs only when we act against our own ethics derived by our own reason.

The sociopath feels no guilt - his objectively disordered act is subjectively allowable within his (faulty) ethical framework.
 
You don’t need to be a sociopath in order to act based on rationality rather than ethics.
No, you don’t. You just need poor judgement. Post #52 states his argument well and I would agree with it.
Example: If one does not think arguing in absolutes is irrational, then one would not feel guilty when imposing punishment on those who disagree with them.

The rationale and ethics of a person or society develop in tandem. A guilty conscience is necessary for a person or society to grow without tearing itself apart. There are examples of societies and individuals self destructing because of poor judgement or sociopathic leaders. Having a guilty conscience is part of us, we would not be able to exist without it.
 
Your experts in the field have determined that there is almost certainly a weapon of mass destruction somewhere where it can do great harm. There are 5 people being detained and your advisors are certain that one of them knows the details of the weapon. **And there is no doubt in their minds that the others would know as well. **It would be rational to waterboard all of them. Would it be morally correct? What do you do, Charles?
It would not be rational to waterboard all of them if all of them know.

You only need to waterboard one of them to get the information.

Have the other four watch the one getting waterboarded. Maybe one of them would spill his guts to save the other four.
 
In other words the Church does not teach what you stated.
Please tell me exactly the official Church teach about torture. So far as I know, it is not covered in the Catechism.

Just war, however, is covered in the Catechism. It would seem to be that weapons used in a just war are permitted since a just war is permitted. The war against terrorism seems to be a just war, and torture is a weapon if it results in saving the lives of those who are waging the just war.
 
Please tell me exactly the official Church teach about torture. So far as I know, it is not covered in the Catechism.
Several quotes from Popes have already been provided. There is also another thread on this specific question. In addition it is off topic.
Just war, however, is covered in the Catechism. It would seem to be that weapons used in a just war are permitted since a just war is permitted. The war against terrorism seems to be a just war, and torture is a weapon if it results in saving the lives of those who are waging the just war.
Lots of assumptions here. Please defend then in the torture thread.
 
Several quotes from Popes have already been provided. There is also another thread on this specific question. In addition it is off topic.

Lots of assumptions here. Please defend then in the torture thread.
Your comments are too vague for me to bother with them. Please try to be more specific.
 
Please tell me exactly the official Church teach about torture. So far as I know, it is not covered in the Catechism.
Just google “ccc torture” and you’ll see:

*2297 …] Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. …]

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors. - vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm*

But I don’t understand why you need to see it written down. As a Catholic were you really never taught that when you violate another person, you violate one of God’s children?

“In the human being heaven and earth touch one another. In the human being God enters into his creation; the human being is directly related to God. The human being is called by him. God’s words in the Old Testament are valid for every individual human being: “I call you by name and you are mine.” Each human being is known by God and loved by him. Each is willed by God, and each is God’s image. Precisely in this consists the deeper and greater unity of humankind – that each of us, each individual human being, realizes the one project of God and has his or her origin in the same creative idea of God. Hence the Bible says that whoever violates a human being violates God’s property (Gen 9:5).” - Joseph Ratzinger, catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top