That’s not true. It IS okay for people to have different opinions. And both can be valid depending on the situation. There are going to be some issues about which there is a correct answer, but in fact, those aren’t as common as we like to think.
"1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.Personally speaking, I would say an ‘opinion’ can never be categorized as right, wrong, true, or false because it is an ‘opinion.’
Well in truth I think that you are creating a difference that does not exist.
+++
“Opinion” is a rather loosely defined thing. An opinion is “about” something and therefore can represent the reality of what it is about, more or less accurately.
Agreed.
This again is true. Preferential opinions in relation to something like ice-cream doesn’t really matter as a difference of opinion is unlikely to have dire consequences - other than kids fighting over it in the back of a car while you are trying to drive.
This is an interesting one and your example - WW2 - is a good one.
I would still hold that using the word opinion to describe these kind of judgements creates needless ambiguity, unless there can be agreement that an opinion is by definition a tentative judgement, one that is not “held” firmly by the person venturing it. In a sense, it can refer to a “weak” judgement, as opposed to a more firmly founded one. As such it is still different, in nature, from a preference which has its origin and full reality only in subjectively accessible emotional states.Agreed.
This again is true. Preferential opinions in relation to something like ice-cream doesn’t really matter as a difference of opinion is unlikely to have dire consequences - other than kids fighting over it in the back of a car while you are trying to drive.
This is an interesting one and your example - WW2 - is a good one.
Here you have both the objective and the subjective element. The objective element in a conflict situation are the causes of the conflict in that we can establish what the causes were. The subjective element is the significance of each of those causes and to what extent they contributed to the conflict. This is were people disagree. They can agree a certain event was a cause, but disagree as to what extent is contributed to the situation and it can be difficult to say who is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ as two or more lines of argument could be equally valid. For example, the policy of appeasement. There are pro-appeasement argument and anti-appeasement arguments, and both are valid. It is therefore difficult to say whether appeasement was ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’
To expand on your example, it is much more difficult to establish the actual cause of WW1. Several factors contributed to the conflict, but historians differ on the actual cause. I would say one difficultly with opinions is when it comes to apportioning ‘blame.’ We have the capacity to negotiate and see things from another’s point of view, but when it comes to who should take responsibility things can get heated.
Then how does your post help answer the question?Well in truth I think that you are creating a difference that does not exist.
The Church as defined full knowledge and complete consent are for the purpose of determining if something is mortal sin. All we have to do is accept this and move forward.
Of course the “ideal” is that we don’t sin at all…
Peace
James
So you think that you and I have to agree as to which movie is our favorite? There is one “right” movie that should be our favorite and all the rest are “wrong”? Or sports? Or hobbies? Or work/life balance? Or how much taxes there ought/ought not to be? Or what we should do with a surplus at work? Or which Mass to attend? Or how often a couple should be intimate? Or how they should discipline their children? Etc.
My posts on this thread were precisely about this. Analyzing your questions, they break down as follows:So you think that you and I have to agree as to which movie is our favorite? There is one “right” movie that should be our favorite and all the rest are “wrong”? Or sports? Or hobbies? Or work/life balance? Or how much taxes there ought/ought not to be? Or what we should do with a surplus at work? Or which Mass to attend? Or how often a couple should be intimate? Or how they should discipline their children? Etc.
There are plenty of things that it is perfectly OK to disagree about.
Thanks for clarifying…I’m sorry that I am not being clear. I’ll try to do better.
To answer this question we must place parameters on what constitutes “full knowledge” within the context of a given discussion. Otherwise, philosophically, one is left with the very conundrum you pose here. Thankfully in the case of sin, we have concrete parameters set for us by the Church.
This question can certainly be a bit trickier. I cannot say that the catechism directly deals with this issue…perhaps someone else can enlighten us both on that.
I think this is too black and white. Using your example of war, I don’t think the reasonable person would assert they like war and think it’s good. Many would say they hate war and think it’s bad. Most of us probably fall somewhere in between in that was is bad but in certain circumstances can be justified. This is much more than an opinion. It’s a process of deliberation based on both objective and subjective elements. There can also be two equally valid conclusions based on the same evidence.
good I bad
I
right war can be right but bad
I
________________________
I
this box I
wrong causes all
the problem II have would have disagree and say objectiveness and subjectivity are intrinsically linked. Objective and subjective elements are considered in judgments made in a court of law. For instance, in relation to recklessness. An act that may be considered reckless if carried out by a certain person in a certain situation, yet the same act may not be considered reckless if carried out by another person in another situation even if the outcome is the same.
I believe you are mistakenly equating “full” with “complete”. Relative to the Church teaching on sin, they are not the same.
(highlighting mine)
I think you misunderstand the point here. Liking or disliking something has no necessary connection with it being good or bad. I could like ice cream but also judge that it isn’t good for me. To say, “Ice cream is good!” might be construed as, "I like ice cream,’ but that is because the word good is used in a multitude of ambiguous ways. What is required to understand my point is a disambiguation of the word good. That is why I used “like” for preference statements. I was hoping you’d see that the word “good” was used to mean objectively and qualitatively “good.” War is good does not mean, in this use, the same as I like war. The first is an objective statement, the second entirely subjective.
They are not intrinsically linked, but there is overlap. Subjectivity implies something derived from the internal state of a person. Objectivity means derived from objective reality. As such they are distinct. Where the overlap occurs is when internal subjective states have impact via volitional acts on objective reality and therefore it becomes possible to discern subjective states by observing objective outcomes (this is your intrinsic link). However, it is the origin of each (where they are derived) that makes them distinct. Not all judgements have subjective components and therefore can be objectively determined when all the relevant facts are assembled. This is why sciences are possible.
I didn’t misunderstand it. If you read my post you will find I categorically stated I agreed with you. In my next post I wasn’t using the term ‘good’ in terms of merely likely or disliking something. I was using it in terms of, for example - just, a duty to be performed, an action to be avoided, something that should be promoted in society.
And your point is? Preferably in a concise nutshell.
That opinions (but not preferences) are subject to objective determination, provided they are not merely expressions of preference but are expressions of judgement based upon objective grounds.
In theory yes, but in practice people are not completely objective and don’t make judgments purely objectively. Unless you go for Rawl’s theory of the ‘unencumbered self’ which personally I don’t. I don’t think anyone be completely objective. They can on occasion and some can be more objective than others. But more to the point, I would argue a degree of subjectivity is necessary in order to make a good judgement. Can you make a good judgement call if your completely disengaged with what’s going on and outside the box? Sometimes such a position may be beneficial, but not always.
Agreed, with the proviso that they are only as a matter of fact, but not necessarily, so. Which means that all opinions (but not subjective preferences) are eligible to being shown true or false.