Exception to the rule

[Rau]

But it’s the conditions at the time that dictate whether an act is moral or not. And hence whether it was evil. You will not be able to give an example of a killing that is a moral evil without describing the conditions at the time. It would be literally impossible.

So there is no theological stand-alone definition of a morally evil killing. You are simply taking the conditions under which the act was comitted and then, post hoc, declaring it to be evil. And declaring it to be so based entirely on the conditions. Nothing else. And this is what we all do. Whatever beliefs we have, whatever religion we profess, we all do exactly the same.

There are, I admit, some purely religious beliefs that are stand-alone. Contraception for one. Masturbation for another. But I don’t see those as moral problems in the first place.

I don’t get your point. We can’t assert an act is (morally) evil without being informed of the moral content, which may not reside in the physical acts alone. In what terms may I describe an act (with moral meaning) without addressing “conditions”?

The declaring of an act of murder morally evil is not arbitrary as you suggest. We declare an act immoral because it meets the tests. You may feel the structure of the tests or the criteria are arbitrary.

In theology, “theft” is immoral always. There is a reason why acts that physically appear to be theft are not so classified - it’s not arbitrary.

In your earlier post, you defined the word theft around a limited set of conditions. The moral or theological definition incorporates more moral content than the meaning you attach to the word.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Could we not say that anything of questionable morality that has no motivation other than ‘I want to’ is pretty absolute in being unjustified?

‘Why did you kill this person?’
‘Because I wanted to.’
= Unjustified and therefore gravely immoral.

‘Because if I didn’t, he was going to kill me.’
= Now we have not only a valid reason, but one of equal weight.

‘Why did you take this object?’
‘Because I wanted it.’
= Unjustified and therefore gravely immoral.

‘Because I was going to die without it.’
= This motivation - life - is actually of greater weight than a mere physical object.

What does everybody think of this?

 

[Bradski]

In your earlier post, you defined the word theft around a limited set of conditions. The moral or theological definition incorporates more moral content than the meaning you attach to the word.

There were a linited set of conditions because they were simply being used as examples. The theological definition contains nothing more than a secular definition contains. There is no difference. We each determine if something is right or wrong in exactly the same way. By assesing it in relation to the conditions relative to the act.

And yes, that does include one’s intention. A non physical component of the conditions. If you shoot at someone with intent to kill, just for the pleasure of it, and you miss, it is still immoral. No harm was done, but your intention forms part of the conditions relative to the act.

Unless you can nominate an act that can be considered right or wrong with no conditions attached to it, then classing something as theologically immoral is no diiferent to saying that is is immoral from a secular viewpoint.

The only difference between your assesment and mine is that you take the church’s teaching to be of prime importance. Whereas I will consider all the arguments that the church might have, but I will not limit myself to them and am not bound by them. I

That is to say, if someone has a better argument, in my opinion, then it carries more weight.

 

[Rau]

There were a linited set of conditions because they were simply being used as examples. The theological definition contains nothing more than a secular definition contains. There is no difference. We each determine if something is right or wrong in exactly the same way. By assesing it in relation to the conditions relative to the act.

And yes, that does include one’s intention. A non physical component of the conditions. If you shoot at someone with intent to kill, just for the pleasure of it, and you miss, it is still immoral. No harm was done, but your intention forms part of the conditions relative to the act.

Unless you can nominate an act that can be considered right or wrong with no conditions attached to it, then classing something as theologically immoral is no diiferent to saying that is is immoral from a secular viewpoint.

The only difference between your assesment and mine is that you take the church’s teaching to be of prime importance. Whereas I will consider all the arguments that the church might have, but I will not limit myself to them and am not bound by them. I

That is to say, if someone has a better argument, in my opinion, then it carries more weight.

You declared a particular act to “remove”’ an individual’s gun “theft” and I explained such an act in the circumstances of that act (which circumstances supply the moral meaning) is not theft as that term is used in Catholic moral theology.

You may have a different system of ethics by which to judge morality. Is it defined?

 

[Bradski]

You declared a particular act to “remove”’ an individual’s gun “theft” and I explained such an act in the circumstances of that act (which circumstances supply the moral meaning) is not theft as that term is used in Catholic moral theology.

You may have a different system of ethics by which to judge morality. Is it defined?

It is theft. No two ways about it. The owners intentions as to the guns use are imaterial. But, because of the conditions relevant to the act, it is justifiable theft.

Whether you actually call it ‘theft’ is a minor semantic difference. The act doesn’t change by how we define it. Your description might, but how I would define it in Spanish or Welsh would be different as well but would not change what happened or how we view it in the slightest.

We can actually dispence with the terms ‘steal’ or ‘theft’ and just describe what happened (I took someone’s gun without his permission to prevent him shooting someone).

You don’t need ‘theological morallity’ to make a decision as to whether the act was good or not. We can dispense with the ‘theological’ descriptive and nothing would change. You need no belief system. You don’t need God to know what is right or wrong. You don’t need the Catholic church either.

 

[Rau]

It is theft. No two ways about it. The owners intentions as to the guns use are imaterial. But, because of the conditions relevant to the act, it is justifiable theft.

“Thou shallt not steal” is one of the “negative precepts of the (divine) law”. In Catholic moral theology the negative precepts are absolute. Thus “to steal” is to act contrary to that precept - which is to act immorally. It is not possible to have a “justified immoral act” - such is a contradiction in terms. The person who takes the gun in the scenario in contemplation has not acted contrary to that precept and has not acted immorally. The reason is that what “to steal” means (in our moral theology) is deeper than “to take without permission”.

Whether you actually call it ‘theft’ is a minor semantic difference. The act doesn’t change by how we define it.

In moral theology, we qualify the nature of “acts” in contemplation by calling them “moral acts” [meaning: acts having a moral character]. This is to try to distinguish the sterile description of “actions” from what we are talking about. The thing we are talking about is not sterile actions, but human acts (“moral acts”) that can be determined as moral or not moral.

You don’t need -]‘theological morality’/-] “moral theology”] to make a decision as to whether the act was good or not. We can dispense with the ‘theological’ descriptive and nothing would change.

If you dispense with the moral content, you fall back to describing actions rather than “moral acts”. I trust you appreciate that, here on CAF, in the moral theology forum, words pertaining to moral acts have the meaning ascribed to them by catholic moral theology.

You need no belief system. You don’t need God to know what is right or wrong. You don’t need the Catholic church either.

Well Bradski, some ethical framework is needed if acts are to be declared “good” or “bad”, but you are right to say that one can be crafted without reference to God. Persons having different ethical frameworks will surely draw different conclusions about the morality of certain acts / scenarios. I have debated with persons here on CAF (s/he declared themselves an atheist) who was quite serious in the view that murder of innocent children was the moral course in certain scenarios. Now, under the ethical system s/he professed, that is logically true. In a Christian (certainly Catholic) system, it can never be true.