How does one solve this scenario?

[fakename]

People should be held responsible for what they do, but what if someone causes (accidentally or intentionally) you to do evil (intentionally or not) and this evil consists in doing evil to the first person? What does the first person do?

For instance can the first person defend himself from the evil of the second -an evil that he helped to cause? And who and how much evil are the first or second people responsible for?

 

[1ke]

Your question doesn’t make any sense.

 

[thistle]

I agree. The post is gibberish.

 

[jpjd]

I agree that the scenario is hard to follow, but in general I would say this: A person should always turn away from evil, even if he helped perpetrate the evil to being with. Secondly, he should help anyone else turn away from evil if he can.

People do this when they have a change of heart. They turn away from sin and help others to do likewise.

As for how much sin each person is responsible for, that could be discussed with a priest in confession. The important thing is to have sincere contrition for your sin and confess it! And then live your life better.

 

[fakename]

Well the question all hinges on the fact that people who are bad deserve to be punished.

Now let me clarify the original scenario.

Basically: an evil person attacks an evil person by attacking him unjustly. Now does the evil person still have a right to self-defense or is being unjustly attacked his punishment? Also, if all evil people ought to be punished, is the fight between them a punishment?

 

[jpjd]

So, in other words, you are asking whether a person, who happens to be evil, is justified in defending himself from an unjust attack, or if he should accept being attacked as his punishment for being, in general, an evil person?

 

[fakename]

So, in other words, you are asking whether a person, who happens to be evil, is justified in defending himself from an unjust attack, or if he should accept being attacked as his punishment for being, in general, an evil person?

essentially yes. And also, would this be a punishment per se or is it lacking something pertaining to the definition of “punishment” (are punishments only performed by competent authorities, etc.)?

 

[jpjd]

In the real world, as opposed to in the movies, an evil person is not going to accept being attacked, especially if it’s unjustified, even if it would serve to even the scales of justice for his evilness. Evil people don’t care about atoning for their sins. Should he accept the attack as punishment for his general evil? I believe not. Justice should be served, and punishment given, according to the law of our land, not according to individual determination and action.

The bigger issue is, the person doing the unjust attack is doing what is called vigilante justice. To maintain the civil society we live in, we must follow the laws of our society, and allow the law to provide the justice. At times it may be deeply satisfying to see vigilante justice in action, but in the end it makes us no different from them.

 

[michelleds]

So you’re giving a hypothetical something like this??

Hitler and Bin Laden find themselves in a bar. Bin Laden punches Hitler. Hitler returns the punch in self-defense.

and then the question is who’s right??

I believe, and please feel free to correct me everyone if I get this wrong, that the nature of the person isn’t considered per se. So, Bin Laden is in error, not because he is an evil person per se, but because he committed an unprovoked battery. Hitler, who is also evil, is potentially not committing a sin, just bc he of his underlying moral cody, because he is acting in self-defense.

However, Hitler’s culpability will depend on it thoughts/motives at the time of the “self-defense” and whether he escalated the encounter by, for instance, producing a knife.

 

[Spirithound]

Basically: an evil person attacks an evil person by attacking him unjustly. Now does the evil person still have a right to self-defense or is being unjustly attacked his punishment? Also, if all evil people ought to be punished, is the fight between them a punishment?

An unjust attack is by definition not a punishment. Therefore Evil Person A may resist the unjust attack from Evil Person B.

Punishments are imposed only by a lawful authority, and executed by an authorized agent of that authority. Therefore, a fight, which implies two or more persons acting on their own authority, can never be a punishment.

 

[fakename]

An unjust attack is by definition not a punishment. Therefore Evil Person A may resist the unjust attack from Evil Person B.

Punishments are imposed only by a lawful authority, and executed by an authorized agent of that authority. Therefore, a fight, which implies two or more persons acting on their own authority, can never be a punishment.

I was also wondering, if any misfortune can be considered a punishment from God? And further, a punishment can be meted out even for something that is forgiven right, or for something that no longer obtains -punishments for theft that occurred years ago for instance.

 

[Spirithound]

I was also wondering, if any misfortune can be considered a punishment from God? And further, a punishment can be meted out even for something that is forgiven right, or for something that no longer obtains -punishments for theft that occurred years ago for instance.

A misfortune might be a punishment from God, but there is no way of knowing whether that is the case or not. Bad things really do seem to happen indiscriminately. However, as a believer, one may take that misfortune and offer up their sufferings for their own sanctification, or for the Holy Souls of Purgatory.

A punishment may be meted out by the civil authority for something that God has already forgiven, yes. Further, yes it is possible that God could still punish for something that He has already forgiven, as in the story of David losing his son. But again, there is no way of knowing whether this is the case in any particular instance or series of instances.