I
inocente
Guest
No, didn’t miss it, just don’t agree with it, for the reasons given. Big Brother is “lovingly concerned” in Orwell’s 1984.
- Status
I
inocente
Guest
Your license to preach against moral relativism got suspended after your recent thread in which you solemnly declared that in the right circumstances the Church is fine with torture.
We don’t need preachers to remind us of the law of gravity. By writing “what the law requires”, Paul is saying we have a set of principles written on our hearts, rather than a prescriptive list of do’s and dont’s.
This appears to be the case. For instance, read the intro of this article on the famous Trolley Problem, then ignore the overview section and read the section on the Fat Man version. Both versions of the dilemma stake five lives against one. Most people, irrespective of their religion or culture, use consequentialist reasoning in the first case to save the five, and categoricalist reasoning in the second to doom the five. So these principles appear to be written or their hearts.
I
inocente
Guest
Morally, I should make you go back down the thread to find it yourself, but whatever. The Pope’s tips for happiness story was covered by many outlets worldwide and my glee was his #1 tip - catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1403144.htmJust curious, where does Pope Francis say this? Can you provide the article?
It doesn’t sound remotely like something a pope would say unless he was talking about some innocuous fault. Was he talking about sodomy? I don’t think so!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
What “reasons given?”
You claim amounts to: “Love has only one option: mind your own business.”
Parental concern for children collapses to “let them be,” “let them live” and don’t get involved lest you get accused by inocente of being “Big Brother” rather than good parent.
Jesus should have let the mob stone the woman caught in adultery. He was acting as “Big Brother” by involving himself in the business of the mob. “Live and let live,” remember?
The problem with your “live and let live” paradigm is that it works as an open ended response, if you (inocente) get to choose when to interfere and under what conditions. Everyone else gets shut down as Orwellian. Very convenient for you, but an unsustainable position once others begin to ask questions about what is entailed by “let live.”
There has to be more to it than “if inocente approves.”
To reiterate…
Interference/intervention in the affairs of others is justified on moral grounds. This has to be true because it is the principle that allows the judicial branch of governments to enforce laws and force compliance of laws by citizens.
There are not only two possible options regarding how to treat others.
- ignore them
- accept everything they do
Parents take this option all the time without waiting for your approval and without fear of being called “Big Brother” by you.
You have no argument except to straw-man what “loving concern” is when the option to get involved is taken. Unfortunately, your little Orwellian scarecrow will not keep the birds from picking apart your corny world view.
“Live and let live” is unsustainable as a moral principle because it requires and assumes adherence to moral principles and a sound ethic to define what will be tolerated and allowed under both “live” and “let live” categories.
I will allow others to do what I wouldn’t do may be a token gesture of thoughtless “niceness,” but when analyzed for “what, specifically, will you allow others to do?” it either collapses into the Golden Rule (as I would have them do to me) or it becomes a nonsensical delusion.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The Church is never right with torture for its own sake.Your license to preach against moral relativism got suspended after your recent thread in which you solemnly declared that in the right circumstances the Church is fine with torture.
What the Church should be right with is the objectively right thing to do in every circumstance when you MUST choose between two evils. Choose the lesser of the two.
Sophie’s Choice involves that circumstance, and the objectively right thing was to save one child’s life.
In the case of water-boarding terrorists to save the lives of others, this is the lesser of two evils.
As I’m sure you know, the Church also supports just war as the lesser of two evils when you MUST make the choice of war or oppression.
So far as I know, the Church has never revoked anyone’s right to preach against moral relativism.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Here is the only direct quote from that article pertaining to “Live and let live.”
“Live and let live.” Everyone should be guided by this principle, he said, which has a similar expression in Rome with the saying, “Move forward and let others do the same.”
So are you saying that sodomy is what the Francis was referring to?
I don’t think Francis is saying we should remove references to the sin of sodomy from the Bible, or that we should actively approve of sodomy in the Catechism. What he may well be saying is that we should not be in the business of persecuting others for their sins. I’m all for that, as I think most Catholics are.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
No, I don’t think the Church teaches this. In the Sophie’s Choice scenario, Sophie was not forced to choose between two evils. She could have done nothing. If this would have led to more deaths, that’s not relevant, because Sophie was not the cause of any of the deaths.
Likewise, if waterboarding is intrinsically evil, a Catholic can NEVER morally do it. Period. It doesn’t matter how many people it would save. We do not do evil so that good may result.
Please read G.E. Anscombe’s “Modern Moral Philosophy”. She is the most brilliant Catholic ethicist of the past 100 years, in my opinion.
www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/mmp.pdf
D
djames99
Guest
You state in your subject title there is a concern. As much concern as a bacteria in a cup of chlorine. HS is as fleeting as we want it to be. We can love to smoke, but we do so knowing stopping is the remedy.
Since we now have a remedy, which proves HS was a trick all along, we are commanded to spread that news to everyone. Refusing puts a barrier in the way of our own maturing Faith and puts into question our allegiance to Christ.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
- Are you saying there is a cure for homosexuality?
- The intent of this thread is to understand why homosexual activity is wrong. It is a philosophical question that has nothing to do with “homosexuality”, since homosexual activity is not terribly uncommon among straight people.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I’d appreciate very much if you could show me where the Catholic bishops condemned waterboarding as intrinsically evil.
Killing, on the other hand, is intrinsically evil; yet the Catholic bishops support the idea of a just war, and the just war is justified in the CCC, which you may want to check out if you haven’t already.
What applies here may apply elsewhere; when confronted by two necessary evils, one can choose the lesser evil or one can stand around sucking one’s thumb.
I daresay prisoners in prison believe they are being tortured by losing their freedom and belong required to work as virtual slaves. This is the lesser of two evils. We can either leave them free to roam the world and wreak havoc, or we can torture them by imprisoning them and making them work as if slaves. Societies chooses the latter, and you do not hear the Catholic Church calling for the abolition of prisons as a an intrinsic evil.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This is the issue I have with scenarios like the Trolley Problem referred to by inocente above. It places the subject into a position of absolute responsibility as if “everything” hangs on their choice of options. Why is there a need to presume this kind of scope to moral decision-making?
As moral agents with a limited sphere of responsibility determined completely by our ontology, it seems a tad presumptuous to extend the scope of responsibility to one which does not befit our state.
On the other hand, as I think Aristotle (and Anscombe, perhaps) would agree, it is within our capacities - and indeed IS our principle responsibility - to determine what is “good” for human flourishing. Once properly established, that “good” would apply universally to humans in general, where ethical questions are concerned.
Inocente’s “live and let live” presumes a kind of ignorance regarding human “good” and, therefore, cannot bring itself to even suggest to others that they may be plying a misconceived notion of “the good.” The presumption seems to be “You don’t really know what is objectively good for you, so stop trying to tell everyone else what that good is.”
Or, more innocuously, mind your own business because everyone ought to arrive at their own idea of the good.
The question - which seems an important one - to me, at least, is what is wrong with sharing conceptions, observations and even, advice, and not be insulted when others attempt to do so, if that “sharing” is done in the proper spirit of loving concern?
Inocente’s point seems to be that “live and let live” entails a “mind your own business” approach to ethics, an implication which seems to make living a very individualistic enterprise rather than cultivating an open mindset where we are earnestly willing to listen to and learn from others.
His conception of “live and let live” seems also contrived in the sense that he only seems willing to apply it to issues which are controversial, but that he wishes were not.
Now there might be some practical wisdom in not pushing where only resistance will be met, but, surely, that does not mean simply “mind your own business” in all matters.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Not to quibble, but I don’t think killing, per se, is considered “intrinsically evil.” Perhaps something like “unjust killing” or “unwarranted killing” is, but that would seem to beg the question of what would make killing “just” or “warranted,” which could not be found ‘intrinsically’ in “killing” itself; otherwise, all killing would be unwarranted because every killing would be intrinsically wrong.Killing, on the other hand, is intrinsically evil; yet the Catholic bishops support the idea of a just war, and the just war is justified in the CCC, which you may want to check out if you haven’t already.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
As Peter Plato said above, killing is not intrinsically evil. Murdering is intrinsically evil – but that’s analytically true, since murder is defined as “wrongful killing”.I’d appreciate very much if you could show me where the Catholic bishops condemned waterboarding as intrinsically evil.
Killing, on the other hand, is intrinsically evil; yet the Catholic bishops support the idea of a just war, and the just war is justified in the CCC, which you may want to check out if you haven’t already.
It is impossible to be forced to choose between two evils. No one can force a person to do evil. If you disagree, please give me an example where someone is forced to do evil. (Sophie’s choice doesn’t count, because inactivity is an option there – and it’s not clear that ANY of her options were intrinsically evil, actually).
It benefits a person to be justly punished. If prisons were unjust punishment, then putting people in prisons would be intrinsically evil. But, in many cases, imprisoning someone is not unjust.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
As an addendum, it would be unjust to put someone in prison who had not committed a crime, simply because that person was likely to commit a crime. Such an action would protect innocents, but it would not be morally permissible. Why? Because it involves choosing evil, so that good may result.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Well, I meant killing in the sense of murdering. I should have been more specific. Is murdering intrinsically wrong?
What does a military sniper do but murder? Is that intrinsically wrong, or is it allowed under the rule of a just war?
Was Osama bin Laden murdered or was that allowed under the rules of a just war?
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
If it’s morally justified, it’s not murder.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
But the person who is being justly punished no doubt regards his condition as pure torture.
We punish him to protect society from him. How is that different from water-boarding to protect society from terrorists? I believe the person who is water-boarded would consider indefinite imprisonment the greater torture, whereas water-boarding is relatively brief and the return to normalcy is certain.
If you had to choose, which would you prefer, to be water-boarded or sent to twenty years in prison?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
You have missed the point entirely. I’m not talking about choosing between two evils. I’m talking about the necessity of choosing between a greater and a lesser evil.
France chose submission to Germany in World War II as the lesser evil.
The Unites States chose declaring war on the Japanese Empire as the lesser evil and the act of a just war.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Anscombe’s article can be a difficult read without familiarity with or clarity regarding the issues in philosophy to which she refers or to the works of philosophers to whom she briefly alludes.
Perhaps a good way of making sense of her overall point is to see it in terms of a ‘situation.’
I have a cat. The cat lives in my home with me. Our lives are lived “in relation” to each other.
Anscombe’s point, I suggest, is that there can be no sense of “moral” or “obligatory” simpliciter with reference to my treatment of my cat without reference to the “whatness” of the cat and, by implication, what the cat requires to flourish as a cat.
In this sense, it is imperative that I allow the cat to be a cat and not attempt to turn it into, say, a watch dog or houseplant. Live and let live works when clarity exists with regard to what it means for a cat to “live.”
However, allowing the cat to be a cat, assumes that I have a logically consistent and somewhat accurate conception of what a “cat” is.
If the cat were to begin committing acts of grave depravity such as plotting to assassinate me, chewing on the faces of guests or using my sock drawer as a litter box, I would be within my “rights” to terminate my relationship, or, at the very least, intervene regarding the cat’s behaviour by infringing on the “live and let live” basic agreement we formerly enjoyed.
Notice, (inocente,) that “live and let live” does not define what I expect (or what I must tolerate) from the cat, but, rather, that a prior conception of what it means to be a “cat” guides when I have a right to intervene and not allow the cat to “live” in any un-catlike way it chooses. In other words, it is not this particular and peculiar cat’s choices of behaviour that define what I will allow as “let live,” but rather it is what “cats” (as a definable breed) require to flourish as cats. That is where the line is drawn.
It is not sufficient to point out that, “Yes, some cats (3-4% of them) can resort ‘naturally’ to face chewing behaviour.” Or, a small segment of cats will be indiscriminate with regards to their placement of litter. What “some cats” are prone to do is not sufficient warrant for tolerating peculiar behaviour, nor is it sufficient that some cats exhibit a behaviour that will justify the inclusion of that behaviour in the definition of what it means for a cat to ‘flourish.’ The claim that ‘this cat’ needs to defecate indiscriminately or tear faces off of humans in order to flourish in its own peculiar manner just because it is ‘that kind’ of cat does not have anything like cogency with regard to whether I ought to tolerate that behaviour and resign myself to it.
Likewise, given that we have a share in the human community, it is not sufficient to conclude that “live and let live” means we must tolerate any and every peculiar notion that human beings come up with. The mere fact that 3-4% of a population has a proclivity towards some behaviour is not a sufficient reason for that behaviour to be tolerated, let alone sanctioned as part of what it means to “be human.”
The point being, that, just like in the cat examples above, it is necessary to show that those human proclivities are an indelible aspect of human flourishing or, at least, do not conflict with it. This demonstration is required BEFORE the acceptance of those behaviours as “what it means to be human” and before they are conditionally included under the “live and let live” umbrella of what counts as tolerable human behaviour.
It is not sufficient to claim some (3-4%) of humans engage in peculiar behaviours, therefore, these behaviours are simply, and without question, a definable aspect of what it means to be human and, therefore, we must “live and let live” regarding all human tendencies and proclivities.
D
davidv
Guest
- Status