Exception to the rule

[LethalMouse]

When discussing a moral situation or something similar,

What value do tiny specific exceptions and offbeat references have?

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

When discussing a moral situation or something similar,

What value do tiny specific exceptions and offbeat references have?

Can you elaborate the question? I don’t know what you mean by offbeat references.

 

[LethalMouse]

Can you elaborate the question? I don’t know what you mean by offbeat references.

Using foreign lands in a discussion where they are not relevant.

Like saying “things go together like spaghetti and meatballs”

And then someone saying “not true bc I do not like spaghetti and meatballs”

Like clearly if you have a fubctioning brain the person would be well aware they are an exception in their spaghetti dislike… so it is still true in the common sense term but they think they proved something via “i dont like spaghetti”

 

[Beryllos]

When discussing a moral situation or something similar,

What value do tiny specific exceptions and offbeat references have?

Exceptions may help us to discover the truth (or the true law) underlying a rule.

Consider, for example, the rule that you should not steal.

Now someone is lost in the woods in a blizzard. They would surely die, but they come upon an unoccupied cabin stocked with food and fuel which could assure their survival. Should they break into the cabin and take shelter there?

The Catechism teaches that this would not constitute stealing:
CCC 2408: The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.
“if consent can be presumed”: The property owner would surely allow the imperiled travelers to use his cabin, though he may reasonably expect them to restore or pay for the goods they consume.

“or if refusal is contrary to reason”: Even if the property owner refuses, it may still be morally acceptable to appropriate his property in order to preserve life or meet the basic needs of others.

“and the universal destination of goods”: This is described in CCC 2401-2408. Briefly, “The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives,” and “The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others.”

What then is the greater truth? What is the underlying law?

“Love one another.”

Property owners have property rights, but those rights are not as important as each person’s right to life and other basic human rights.

“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.” (Matthew 25:35-36)

 

[LethalMouse]

Exceptions may help us to discover the truth (or the true law) underlying a rule.

Consider, for example, the rule that you should not steal.

Now someone is lost in the woods in a blizzard. They would surely die, but they come upon an unoccupied cabin stocked with food and fuel which could assure their survival. Should they break into the cabin and take shelter there?

The Catechism teaches that this would not constitute stealing:
CCC 2408: The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.
“if consent can be presumed”: The property owner would surely allow the imperiled travelers to use his cabin, though he may reasonably expect them to restore or pay for the goods they consume.

“or if refusal is contrary to reason”: Even if the property owner refuses, it may still be morally acceptable to appropriate his property in order to preserve life or meet the basic needs of others.

“and the universal destination of goods”: This is described in CCC 2401-2408. Briefly, “The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives,” and “The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others.”

What then is the greater truth? What is the underlying law?

“Love one another.”

Property owners have property rights, but those rights are not as important as each person’s right to life and other basic human rights.

“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.” (Matthew 25:35-36)

Good point

And I agree when it is part of the convo.

I am kind of talking about when the context of the convo is “stealing is bad” and the exception you listed is not in question but is rather used to discredit the general “stealing is bad topic”.

But I do like the way you put it in this particular context and it can be good to remember as well

 

[Bookcat]

I am kind of talking about when the context of the convo is “stealing is bad” and the exception you listed is not in question but is rather used to discredit the general “stealing is bad topic”.

That is not an exception to stealing. That is simply not stealing. There is no exception to stealing. Theft is always wrong.

 

[Sarcelle]

Using foreign lands in a discussion where they are not relevant.

Like saying “things go together like spaghetti and meatballs”

And then someone saying “not true bc I do not like spaghetti and meatballs”

Like clearly if you have a fubctioning brain the person would be well aware they are an exception in their spaghetti dislike… so it is still true in the common sense term but they think they proved something via “i dont like spaghetti”

You must remember that not all posters live in the US.

Of course, they are going to post what is applicable to their country.

I’ve lived in several countries so my point of view will be different than someone who has only lived in only one country. Do not dismiss the opinion of others just because their experiences do not mirror your own.

When we discuss moral issues it makes more sense to me at least to take into account global issues, because the human experience is more than just the American experience.

 

[LethalMouse]

You must remember that not all posters live in the US.

Of course, they are going to post what is applicable to their country.

I’ve lived in several countries so my point of view will be different than someone who has only lived in only one country. Do not dismiss the opinion of others just because their experiences do not mirror your own.

When we discuss moral issues it makes more sense to me at least to take into account global issues, because the human experience is more than just the American experience.

Well on that

1. Often the posters are not from said country but using it facetiously
2. It can be a factor, but it is again the relevance to the topic at hand.

The old apples to oranges thing. I can make anypoint about apples seem wrong if I only talk about oranges

 

[Sarcelle]

Well on that

1. Often the posters are not from said country but using it facetiously
2. It can be a factor, but it is again the relevance to the topic at hand.

The old apples to oranges thing. I can make anypoint about apples seem wrong if I only talk about oranges

Can you give examples?

 

[LethalMouse]

Can you give examples?

Not sure how without reigniting other threads lol

But the spaghetti examole part sums it up

Another example would be for hypothetical

OP: is it rude to tell people not to make Spaghetti and hotdogs at their party? (I am american)

Posters debate rudeness and gray area morality with one side obsessed with “it is not rude because in india they don’t eat spaghetti and hot dogs”

Well yeah duh, and the issue would be [insert indian dish] if we were talking about india…

But we are not, so using cultural acceptance in india in this case is irrelevant and the act of insanity.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Well on that

1. Often the posters are not from said country but using it facetiously
2. It can be a factor, but it is again the relevance to the topic at hand.

The old apples to oranges thing. I can make anypoint about apples seem wrong if I only talk about oranges

This is a peeve of mine. When I’m making an analogy and my father chooses not to see the parallel, he immediately says ‘apples and oranges’ as if the phrase alone disproves whatever I said.

So I once replied,

Actually, they have a lot in common. They are both round, sweet, seed-bearing fruits with a protective outer peel, that develop from blossoms on flowering trees, which rely on pollination by insects.

… And he couldn’t see the parallel there, either. Sometimes it’s truly maddening.

 

[LethalMouse]

This is a peeve of mine. When I’m making an analogy and my father chooses not to see the parallel, he immediately says ‘apples and oranges’ as if the phrase alone disproves whatever I said.

So I once replied,

Actually, they have a lot in common. They are both round, sweet, seed-bearing fruits with a protective outer peel, that develop from blossoms on flowering trees, which rely on pollination by insects.

… And he couldn’t see the parallel there, either. Sometimes it’s truly maddening.

I agree with the principal when the context warrants it.

However stating “Oranges don’t grow here on my land”

And then you arguing “Of course they do, if apples do, oranges will”

Is insanity

And adding an already known fact (we are clearly talking natural growth IN CONTEXT)

And you were to say " they grow in greenhouses"…

Well yeah no one anywhere is arguing that, but that is irrelevant to the context of the convo and you [insert capable minded person] knows that full well and are being of malintent.

 

[SilverShadow22]

I agree with the principal when the context warrants it.

However stating “Oranges don’t grow here on my land”

And then you arguing “Of course they do, if apples do, oranges will”

Is insanity

And adding an already known fact (we are clearly talking natural growth IN CONTEXT)

And you were to say " they grow in greenhouses"…

Well yeah no one anywhere is arguing that, but that is irrelevant to the context of the convo and you [insert capable minded person] knows that full well and are being of malintent.

Growing in the same climate wasn’t one of the similarities I listed, therefore, it is an invalid statement to make.

My witty comeback was intended to prove that just because two things aren’t completely analogous, doesn’t justify ignoring where they are, in fact, similar.

I would have thought that was the exact point of your examples.

If I say,

Well, apples and oranges are both round

But you say,

But they don’t grow in the same places!!!

…didn’t you just do what you’re saying you hate?

 

[SilverShadow22]

Growing in the same climate wasn’t one of the similarities I listed, therefore, it is an invalid statement to make.

My witty comeback was intended to prove that just because two things aren’t completely analogous, doesn’t justify ignoring where they are, in fact, similar.

I would have thought that was the exact point of your examples.

If I say,

Well, apples and oranges are both round

But you say,

But they don’t grow in the same places!!!

…didn’t you just do what you’re saying you hate?

 

[LethalMouse]

Growing in the same climate wasn’t one of the similarities I listed, therefore, it is an invalid statement to make.

My witty comeback was intended to prove that just because two things aren’t completely analogous, doesn’t justify ignoring where they are, in fact, similar.

I would have thought that was the exact point of your examples.

If I say,

Wrll, apples and oranges are both round

But you say,

But they don’t grow in the same places!!!

…didn’t you just do what you’re saying you hate?

Indeed you misunderstood the topic.

If you read up you would see my agreement with another poster on a similar suggestion.

And my clarification repeatedly that the circumstance I am putting forth is in ones when issues like the climate are at play.

And yes, if “round” was the relevant context then saying they are different in that context would be the same as what I am against here…

You are kind of all over the map on me right now

 

[Bradski]

That is not an exception to stealing. That is simply not stealing. There is no exception to stealing. Theft is always wrong.

You know your work colleague is going to kill everyone in the office later in the day so when he isn’t looking, you steal his weapon.

That’s wrong?

 

[SilverShadow22]

You know your work colleague is going to kill everyone in the office later in the day so when he isn’t looking, you steal his weapon.

That’s wrong?

I believe what Bookcat means is that it’s only theft if someone has the right to what you’re taking. The right of your coworkers to live outweighs the aggressor’s right to possess his weapon.

Therfore, again, that’s not stealing. That’s prudence.

But it’s stealing if you simply fancy the gun for yourself, or you don’t have good reason to believe he intends harm with it.

 

[LethalMouse]

You know your work colleague is going to kill everyone in the office later in the day so when he isn’t looking, you steal his weapon.

That’s wrong?

Ironically the assault on wording was exactly the kind of “exceptions” and “Sidebars” that people use to side step a point… he knew full well the context of the conversation and debating that it “is not stealing” is semantic shenanigans…

Honestly I do suppose occasionally we have people whose mental capacity is unable to absorb context, but given the tendencies of this method to undermine opposing ideas I would say it is usually an act of malice and to gain a self inflicted feeling of superiority…

Kind of like saying: You’re*

and then deciding you have won an argument of substance and never actually discussing substance

 

[Bookcat]

You know your work colleague is going to kill everyone in the office later in the day so when he isn’t looking, you steal his weapon.

That’s wrong?

Again that is not theft.

 

[Bookcat]

Ironically the assault on wording was exactly the kind of “exceptions” and “Sidebars” that people use to side step a point… he knew full well the context of the conversation and debating that it “is not stealing” is semantic shenanigans…

No it is not.

It is theological precision.

This is a forum for the discussion of Moral Theology.

It is a very very important point to note that theft is sinful.

And to note that it is *not *an “exception” to that moral reality. Rather it is not that moral reality.

It is simply* not theft*.