Homosexuality and Natural Law -- A Concern

[Prodigal_Son]

How are a “greater evil” and a “lesser evil” not two evils?

I’m wondering, too.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

You need to give me an example of an action that was clearly morally correct. Otherwise, I can just question whether France was right – and I’m not sure about that at all.

But the person who is being justly punished no doubt regards his condition as pure torture.

We punish him to protect society from him.

If he is deserving of such punishment, we are acting justly. If he is not deserving, we are acting unjustly. It BENEFITS a person to be punished justly. Of course, they don’t like it. That’s why it’s called punishment.

Do you have kids? If so, surely you understand that just punishment benefits a child.

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?

This is a separate question, and not really related. But I don’t think your method is right here. I would choose playing Russian roulette and possibly dying to 20 years in prison, but that does not mean Russian roulette is a more justifiable punishment than 20 years in prison.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How are a “greater evil” and a “lesser evil” not two evils?

Again, you missed the word “necessity.” It is sometimes necessary to choose between two evils. Yes, they are both evil, and so you must choose one or the other, as in the case of Sophie’s Choice or in the case of declaring war on Japan rather than suffering the further invasion that was likely after Peal Harbor.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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).

I would disagree, here.

A surgeon faced with letting a patient die of cancer or removing a cancerous leg cannot choose “inactivity” because that is decidedly what will result in the greater evil of the patient dying.

So a surgeon’s choice is between letting the patient die or amputating a leg. Both are “evil” in the relevant sense of privation of good, but one is definitely a “lesser” evil compared to the other.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do you have kids? If so, surely you understand that just punishment benefits a child.

This is a separate question, and not really related. But I don’t think your method is right here. I would choose playing Russian roulette and possibly dying to 20 years in prison, but that does not mean Russian roulette is a more justifiable punishment than 20 years in prison.

Punishment benefits a child, though the child regards it as pure torture.

Water-boarding benefits society, though the person water-boarded believes he is being tortured.

Russian Roulette is a separate question and not really related. Moreover, I would not prefer what you prefer, death to twenty years in prison. Twenty years in prison is time enough to repent and prepare oneself for a better life upon release. Don’t you think?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I would disagree, here.

A surgeon faced with letting a patient die of cancer or removing a cancerous leg cannot choose “inactivity” because that is decidedly what will result in the greater evil of the patient dying.

So a surgeon’s choice is between letting the patient die or amputating a leg. Both are “evil” in the relevant sense of privation of good, but one is definitely a “lesser” evil compared to the other.

To nitpick…

Both have bad results. But it is not true that both actions are bad, in context.

It is prima facie wrong to cut off a leg, but in context it is not wrong. It’s just like the killing case. It is prima facie wrong to kill a person, but in the context of self-defense it isn’t wrong.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Punishment benefits a child, though the child regards it as pure torture.

Water-boarding benefits society, though the person water-boarded believes he is being tortured.

If water-boarding genuinely harms the criminal, it is wrong. It is never morally right to harm a person. Hurt, yes. Harm, no.

(Harm = make a person’s overall condition – including moral condition – worse).

 

[Peter_Plato]

If water-boarding genuinely harms the criminal, it is wrong. It is never morally right to harm a person. Hurt, yes. Harm, no.

(Harm = make a person’s overall condition – including moral condition – worse).

So, imprisonment does not “harm” a person - as in make their overall condition worse?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If water-boarding genuinely harms the criminal, it is wrong. It is never morally right to harm a person. Hurt, yes. Harm, no.

(Harm = make a person’s overall condition – including moral condition – worse).

By this definition, both removing a cancerous leg and letting a patient die make the overall condition of the cancer patient worse compared to his/her current state. Both genuinely “harm" the patient by making the actual condition (alive with two legs) worse.

It would appear to be question begging to claim removing the leg actually made things “better” for the patient because “better” simply means the patient did not suffer the worse of the two possible harms.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So, imprisonment does not “harm” a person - as in make their overall condition worse?

No, it doesn’t. It makes their moral condition much better. Or it should – and if it doesn’t, that’s because our prisons are bad.

By this definition, both removing a cancerous leg and letting a patient die make the overall condition of the cancer patient worse compared to his/her current state. Both genuinely “harm" the patient by making the actual condition (alive with two legs) worse.

It would appear to be question begging to claim removing the leg actually made things “better” for the patient because “better” simply means the patient did not suffer the worse of the two possible harms.

The cancer is what made the person’s condition worse. Cutting off the leg makes the patient’s condition better – no more cancer!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To nitpick…It is prima facie wrong to cut off a leg, but in context it is not wrong. It’s just like the killing case. It is prima facie wrong to kill a person, but in the context of self-defense it isn’t wrong.

And so it is wrong to water-board people, but in the context of defending lives it isn’t wrong.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And so it is wrong to water-board people, but in the context of defending lives it isn’t wrong.

OK. But some actions don’t work that way. There’s no “right circumstance” in which to rape a person. It would never be OK to rape someone so that some good result would happen.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

OK. But some actions don’t work that way. There’s no “right circumstance” in which to rape a person. It would never be OK to rape someone so that some good result would happen.

True. But I cannot imagine an instance where you could argue that some good would result.

Can you?

 

[davidv]

True. But I cannot imagine an instance where you could argue that some good would result.

Can you?

How is what can be imaged have to do with the morality of an action.

There are three fonts on morality, that can generally be summarized: the ends don’t justify the means.

Those fonts are:

1. The act, or object
2. The intention
3. The circumstances

If 1 is immoral the act is immoral regardless the status of 2 and 3. Else if 2 or 3 are immoral the act is immoral regardless the status of the other two.

Your “lesser of two evils” proposal violates the general principal of the ends don’t justify the means.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

True. But I cannot imagine an instance where you could argue that some good would result.

Can you?

Easy. Suppose that raping someone will lead to the birth of the person who cures cancer, and saves hundreds of millions of lives. Or suppose that you are told to rape someone, or else a terrorist will blow up the Empire State Building.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Easy. Suppose that raping someone will lead to the birth of the person who cures cancer, and saves hundreds of millions of lives. Or suppose that you are told to rape someone, or else a terrorist will blow up the Empire State Building.

This is hardly a credible scenario.

In the first place, a terrorist would not desist from blowing up the Empire State Building just because you refused to rape someone.

In the second place, what reason would we have to believe that the threat is real and not the idle threat of some whacko? :hypno:

Try again?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Your “lesser of two evils” proposal violates the general principal of the ends don’t justify the means.

No it doesn’t.

Suicide is despair, and despair is a sin, just as hope is a virtue.

The ends do not justify the means if you are talking about the plan to commit an evil act for self interest. But that is not the case in choosing the lesser of two evils WHEN YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE.

For example, suicide may be committed to serve a self interest of escaping the problems of life. The end does not justify the means because YOU DON’T HAVE TO commit suicide. You can get help.

However, when a soldier HAS TO CHOOSE between two evils, such as falling on a grenade and saving his platoon, or letting his platoon be slaughtered, he may commit suicide and posthumously get a medal and the thanks of his platoon and the status of a hero and martyr for the cause.

“No greater love has a man than that he lay down his life for a friend.”

But I am willing to stop this discussion because we have hijacked the thread. I give you and anyone else the last word if you want it, and I’ll bow out as I think I’ve said all I need to say on this subject.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is hardly a credible scenario.

In the first place, a terrorist would not desist from blowing up the Empire State Building just because you refused to rape someone.

In the second place, what reason would we have to believe that the threat is real and not the idle threat of some whacko? :hypno:

Try again?

It doesn’t have to be credible in order to be morally evaluable.

But try this. A state declares a law that women must get married or become slaves. (This is not unrealistic, historically). A generous man agrees to “marry” a woman legally, but live as brother and sister, since she doesn’t want to be married. The king becomes suspicious that it is not a real marriage, so he says he will be coming to check the physical integrity of her private parts, to see if she remains a virgin. If she is still a virgin, the king will kill both of you.

When the man explains to her the situation, she refuses to have sex, and refuses to do anything to break her hymen forcibly. In this case, a rape would save two lives (it has better consequences), but it is still impermissible.

 

[inocente]

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.

1. ignore them
2. accept everything they do

The third option is involvement out of loving concern for their welfare - both temporal and eternal. It doesn’t entail spying, surreptitious activity, deception or hand-wringing anxiety. It is simple and direct love in action.

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.

This is VERY frustrating Pedro. You keep on claiming that live and let live means other than what it does and that it applies to every situation you dream up.

One last time! It means letting other law abiding citizens live their lives as each sees fit - letting them choose their religion, their politics, their way of life for themselves. That’s law abiding adult citizens of your own country. Treating them as created equal and having liberty under the law.

And liberty means a right to privacy, and a right to privacy means that you don’t get to tell consenting law abiding adult citizens what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes.

If you really think that’s immoral or unworkable, then by all means argue for the alternative of CCTV in every room of every house so Big Brother can watch every citizen 24x7, but please don’t keep inventing straw men, it is VERY frustrating Pedro!

 

[inocente]

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?

No - you’ll need to read the thread to see how it applied.