Foreseen but unintended

[BlackFriar]

I am curious if your system can have a secular (rational) foundation to it

I would think that a rational approach would be to start debating with groups you chose to approach on their terms; see if they are consistent in their definitions and principles, well congruent in their application.

I would think Catholic morality is seriously “rational” given it is basically Aristotelian and secular in its framework. Of course classical secular Aristotelian philosophy is fairly “apriori” and is strongly opposed by that of secular Renaissance enlightenment philosophy which is far more empirical and “aposteriori” in its principles.

I think that will be your issue with Catholic morality - nothing to do with faith or religion at all really.

 

[MPat]

Theft is taking someone else’s property without permission. And I DO understand the definition presented in the CCC, I simply disagree with it.

A very good wording: you really simply disagree with it. No arguments in favour of your definition have been presented.

But let’s suppose that by killing one person you can save two or more. The higher the number of that “more”, the easier it is choose the “killing one” scenario.

But under the ethical system you claim to accept, that higher number can do no additional work here. If you took your system seriously, you would have to conclude that any additional benefit (in addition to saving one other life) makes killing moral, if not mandatory!

So, of course, you do not really take “your” system seriously.

My ethical system is not “simple”. It takes proportionality into consideration, along with utilitarianism. Actually I consider ALL the aspects of a deed, not just one.

No, you do not. At the very least, you do ignore the intention. You made that much pretty clear.

In my ethical system it would always be horrendously immoral to punish anyone for their thoughts.

No. In “your” ethical system you would have to find out what would be the result. Only then you’d be able to decide if that would be moral.

Or have you suddenly discovered something that is intrinsically immoral, thus disproving utilitarianism?

I sympathize with your effort to force me into a corner - but as soon you start to talk about specific scenarios, they need to be “fleshed out”.

Let’s see what you wrote about dilemmas in another thread:

In every such dilemma there are a few predominant “responses”:

1. An attempt wiggle out by arguing that they are impossible in real life.
2. An attempt to change the parameters and “defuse” the dilemma - by introducing some new possibilities, which are clearly permissible under their ethical system.
3. Accusing the person who presents the dilemma of attempting to place the believers in “bad light”.

Mind you, in these dilemmas are no “right” or “wrong” answers. The point is how you defend your position - whatever it might be. What say you? Are you one of those, who tries to “escape” the dilemma?

I guess you also try to “escape the dilemma”, when it is directed to you?

 

[TheLittleLady]

In my ethical system it would always be horrendously immoral to punish anyone for their thoughts.

Three people from the United Confederacy of Blugobania are thinking about blowing up a pre-school for deaf children, really really cute deaf-children who are also geniuses and they are exactly 5 days from developing a tiny pill that will cure cancer and obesity and acne.

You are an undercover agent with the mind-reader force of the FBI. You can read the thoughts of every person. All citizens of Blugobania are born mute and do not have the capacity to communicate in any written form. They communicate exclusively by telepathy.

Do you arrest the Blugobaniac terror cell?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Do you have a Bible? Romans 6:23 and Revelation 21:8

 

[vincentleo]

I’m not certain what frames your perspective on this subject, but if you accept the concept of divine law (for example, the authority of the 10 Commandments) then we have a problem if the principle of double-effect doesn’t exist. Without this principle, then we cannot defend ourselves against an unjust aggressor (e.g., in the case of war), because the Fifth Commandment forbids killing. But defending ourselves from an unjust aggressor certainly is in line with justice.

Regarding stealing, I’m not sure why you say that Catholic teaching is arbitrarily changing definitions. Either private property is absolute (in which case taking the property of someone else is always wrong, and this is not the position of the Church), or it is not (in which case, sometimes it may be acceptable to take the property of someone else, and this is the position of the Church). Stealing/theft would be the definition for the situation when one takes the property of another unjustly.

 

[BlackFriar]

(in which case, sometimes it may be acceptable to take the property of someone else, and this is the position of the Church). Stealing/theft would be the definition for the situation when one takes the property of another unjustly.

Excellent explanation of Catholic theology of stealing.
The CCC also gives examples demonstrating the principle involved in justly taking the property of others. That is not theft or stealing.

 

[Scowler]

No. But it does matter why one is doing the action.

If the action is good, it does not matter why the person did it. Good deeds need no justification, no excuse, no explanation. If you give food to a hungry person, the nutritional value does not decrease if your intention was to gain social standing in the community, or if you wanted to feel good about yourself. As a matter of fact, no one can know what your incentives might have been. So you have no grounds to declare it “evil”.

Only if the action is bad, one must find out if the action is justifiable or not. It is possible that the action is only seemingly bad, it looks bad on the surface, but if there is an explanation, it turns out to be good. I am still waiting for an explanation why was the Holocaust only seemingly bad.

Much of catholic moral thought is based on virtue ethics, which is a significantly older system and not specifically religious.

Not really. Maybe some of it. But is mixed with deontological ethics, and mostly based upon the perceived commands given by God. The word perceived is the most important part of it. If you get convinced that God wants you to commit genocide (see the slaughter of the Amalekites) then that is the “virtuous” act to do.

The reason here is that someone who has the will and desire to do an immoral act, but doesn’t actually have the opportunity to commit that act, is no better morally than the person who does that act.

It is only true if you subscribe to the concept of thought crime. Besides, if you plan a murder, but you are prevented by outside circumstances to carry it out, you can still change your mind. Abraham was about to go on and sacrifice Isaac, only God’s intervention prevented him to carry out the act. Was that act “virtuous”?

 

[BlackFriar]

Not really. Maybe some of it. But is mixed with deontological ethics, and mostly based upon the perceived commands given by God. The word perceived is the most important part of it. If you get convinced that God wants you to commit genocide (see the slaughter of the Amalekites) then that is the “virtuous” act to do.

Please get real.
Few educated Catholics believe this OT (God told me) justification stuff.
You are confusing us with fundamentalist Protestants.
Interesting you didnt quote the NT to close this.

 

[Scowler]

Please get real.

Few educated Catholics believe this OT (God told me) justification stuff anymore.

Interesting you didnt quote the NT to close this.

But Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the OT laws, rather to “fulfill” them. He left all the Levitican laws in affect. But of course, if you wish to throw out the whole OT as sheer mythology, be my guest. Along with it we shall get rid of the original sin, the talking snake, the rib-woman, the monogenesis, the Adam and Eve myth, and the whole foundation of Christianity.

You would be better off if you had some official writ, which enumerates the parts of the OT that are to be accepted literally, thereby separating the goats from the sheep.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

Please get real.

Few educated Catholics believe this OT (God told me) justification stuff anymore.

Interesting you didnt quote the NT to close this.

But Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the OT laws, rather to “fulfill” them. He left all the Levitican laws in affect. But of course, if you wish to throw out the whole OT as sheer mythology, be my guest. Along with it we shall get rid of the original sin, the talking snake, the rib-woman, the monogenesis, the Adam and Eve myth, and the whole foundation of Christianity.

You would be better off if you had some official writ, which enumerates the parts of the OT that are to be accepted literally, thereby separating the goats from the sheep.

What has this response to do with your assertion that Catholicism espouses Divine Command deontological ethics.
What a nonsense.

 

[TheLittleLady]

He left all the Levitican laws in affect.

Do you have a Bible?

Read Acts chapter 10 and pretty much all of the Epistles.

 

[DarkLight]

You are confusing us with fundamentalist Protestants.

Pretty much yes. You’re insisting we should believe something we don’t and then asking us to defend what you think we believe.

 

[BlackFriar]

By all means engage in acts of pleasant solipsism by coming onto a Catholic website and victoriously taking out paper-tiger Catholicism if that rings your bell.
Don’t expect real Catholics to look up or be interested though.

 

[Ender]

In my ethical system it would always be horrendously immoral to punish anyone for their thoughts.

In your ethical system, right is whatever you consider it to be. That’s quite rational. You cannot, however, claim that anyone else’s system is wrong, only that it is different. If you believe whatever seems reasonable and rational to you surely you ought to recognize that each of us has the same right to decide for ourselves what is or is not moral…for us. That this reduces morality to nothing more than personal preference, like preferring blue over green, ought to be just as obvious.

 

[DarkLight]

Here’s a question for you, @Scowler: You say an ethical system aims at the good of all. What good is it aiming for?

 

[Scowler]

In your ethical system, right is whatever you consider it to be. That’s quite rational. You cannot, however, claim that anyone else’s system is wrong, only that it is different. If you believe whatever seems reasonable and rational to you surely you ought to recognize that each of us has the same right to decide for ourselves what is or is not moral…for us. That this reduces morality to nothing more than personal preference, like preferring blue over green, ought to be just as obvious.

I like this. But you forgot something. There is a “tiny” difference between preferring a color and performing an act that affects others. If the act only affects you, there is no problem: do whatever you want and it is no one else’s business.

Let’s take a simple example: “according to your ethical system it is wrong for YOU to miss mass for frivolous reasons. If you have a good reason to miss mass, there is no problem”. This requirement does not affect non-Catholics. So this part of your ethical setup is irrelevant for others. You do not declare non-Catholics to be evil or immoral for missing mass.

On the other hand, your ethical system demands abstinence outside a marriage - regardless of religious affiliation. So you declare non-Catholics to be evil or immoral for not following your ethical system. And herein lies a problem. The point is that IF you wish your ethical system to be applicable for everyone (not just for Catholics) then you must give objective, non-Catholic reasons for condemning them - IF, of course you wish to be taken seriously.

Considering that humanity has been around for much longer than the Catholic religion, and the concept of formal marriage is also new, you need to give some reasons for condemning an overwhelming part of humanity as “evil” and “immoral”. The concept of “natural law” is somewhat older than the church, but not much. And there is no “natural law” which would declare sex outside marriage to be immoral, is there? It is natural for males to spread their genes as widely as possible. It is natural for females to have steady relationships with the provider for their children.

There are many different ethical systems “out there”. No one is required to accept someone else’s ethical system. In the stone age there was no “problem” with cannibalism. Today there is, but the condemnation is not absolute. When that airplane crashed in the Andes, the survivors had to resort to cannibalism, and no one declared them “immoral”. This was a good example of “relative” morality.

 

[MPat]

On the other hand, your ethical system demands abstinence outside a marriage - regardless of religious affiliation. So you declare non-Catholics to be evil or immoral for not following your ethical system. And herein lies a problem. The point is that IF you wish your ethical system to be applicable for everyone (not just for Catholics) then you must give objective, non-Catholic reasons for condemning them - IF, of course you wish to be taken seriously.

So, here you demand objective reasons for condemnation? Let’s see, if you offer such objective, non-atheist reasons in analogous cases:

In my ethical system it would always be horrendously immoral to punish anyone for their thoughts.

No, not even a subjective reason is present.

So, presumably you do not want to be taken seriously?

No one is required to accept someone else’s ethical system.

So, what are you doing here acting as if we had to accept your system?

And there is no “natural law” which would declare sex outside marriage to be immoral, is there? It is natural for males to spread their genes as widely as possible. It is natural for females to have steady relationships with the provider for their children.

Isn’t it interesting that after claiming that natural law can’t possibly forbid that, you also give an argument against your claim?

Did you actually fail to notice that?

And, for more details, there is a question in Supplement of “Summa Theologica”: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP041.html.

In the stone age there was no “problem” with cannibalism.

Do you happen to have a proof? A collection of sermons from that time, perhaps?

When that airplane crashed in the Andes, the survivors had to resort to cannibalism, and no one declared them “immoral”. This was a good example of “relative” morality.

No, this was a good example of a word that is vague and hasn’t been precisely defined. That is, is killing for food an essential part of “cannibalism”?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

On the other hand, your ethical system demands abstinence outside a marriage - regardless of religious affiliation. So you declare non-Catholics to be evil or immoral for not following your ethical system. And herein lies a problem. The point is that IF you wish your ethical system to be applicable for everyone (not just for Catholics) then you must give objective, non-Catholic reasons for condemning them - IF, of course you wish to be taken seriously.

Proclaiming what we believe to be the truth should not be dependent on our expectation of being taken seriously. Our expectation of how others may react to our words is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with giving Catholic-based reasons for what we believe. If someone is not a Catholic and does not understand, then we can go a step further, if asked, and try to explain how we came to the Catholic faith. There is no reason to deliberately avoid referencing our faith in favor of secular arguments if the issue being debated is essentially a moral one.

The concept of “natural law” is somewhat older than the church, but not much. And there is no “natural law” which would declare sex outside marriage to be immoral, is there? It is natural for males to spread their genes as widely as possible. It is natural for females to have steady relationships with the provider for their children.

The term “natural law” does not mean “whatever happens in nature.” Rather it means what is right based on our understanding of the essential nature (in the philosophical sense, not the biological sense) of man.

There are many different ethical systems “out there”. No one is required to accept someone else’s ethical system.

Proclaiming what we believe to be the truth is not “forcing” anyone to accept our ethical system. It is inviting them to do so.

 

[Scowler]

Proclaiming what we believe to be the truth should not be dependent on our expectation of being taken seriously. Our expectation of how others may react to our words is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? I was under the impression that you were given the task (by Jesus, no less) to spread the word, to be the bearer of “good news”, be the “salt of the Earth” and as such help all the non-Catholics to see the light, and become Catholics. To achieve that task, the best solution is to speak to others using their own language - called reason and secular arguments. You should not assume that the Catholic arguments would carry any weight for non-Catholics. It is not because non-Catholics do not “understand” your arguments, it is because they are not rational, and as such not compelling.

For example, the arguments against murder do not require Catholic arguments, the rational and secular arguments will do just fine. The basis of such arguments are established by the “golden rule” (also called reciprocal altruism) - which are fully rational and did NOT originate with Catholicism. Are there such arguments for the abstinence outside marriage (for example)? I have never seen one.

The term “natural law” does not mean “whatever happens in nature.” Rather it means what is right based on our understanding of the essential nature (in the philosophical sense, not the biological sense) of man.

I am aware of that. What I don’t see is that there would be an “essential nature” of humanity. By the way, if the “philosophical nature” of man is not grounded on the “biological nature”, then what is grounded upon?

It is inviting them to do so.

Very well. So why don’t you extend that invitation using arguments that non-Catholics can find to be good and compelling? You might even succeed in convincing non-Catholics to convert.

 

[DarkLight]

Very well. So why don’t you extend that invitation using arguments that non-Catholics can find to be good and compelling? You might even succeed in convincing non-Catholics to convert.

Depends on the non-Catholic. That only works if the non-Catholics are willing to listen to what are arguments are, not what they think they should be, and are open to considering arguments even if the conclusion isn’t where they want it to be.

That often isn’t the case.