I have been TOLD... so what?

[pig]

How come that so many people confuse the two propositions: “You know that X” and “You know ‘the teaching’ that X”? Let “X” be “extra-marital sex is sinful”, for example, or “non-procreative sex is sinful”, or something similar. People assert that we (others) KNOW that “X is sinful”… because WE HAVE BEEN TOLD. Is it really possible that they TRULY cannot comprehend the difference?

This problem is serious, after all one of the three requirements for something to be “mortally sinful” is that the person who commits the act must be “aware” (sometimes expressed as “fully aware”) that the act is a grave matter. No, I am not “aware” that such actions are a “grave matter”, however, I AM aware that SOME people consider them a grave matter. But this is only the opinion of those people, nothing more. And the opinion of those people is not accepted as valid, they have no credibility. After all how can one take those people seriously who cannot understand the difference between “You know that X” and “You know the teaching that X”?

Do you mean not to judge you? You judge yourself, surely.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Thank you kindly.

Welcome. I had actually thought about starting this thread myself.

On a closely related note I have a friend that has leukemia. I have another friend that has told that her that she can be healed by purchasing some machine for 4,000 USD that produces some type of “special” water. My friend has not made the purchase and has stated that she never will. To the person telling her to purchase the water she just seems unjustifiably intransigent. After all, what’s $4,000 if it will save your life? I’m sure you can see how this situation is some what analogous to the point you are raising.

Also there was conversation in a movie that relates to your point.

Idi Amin: I want you to tell me what to do.
Nicholas Garrigan: You want ME to tell YOU what to do?
Idi Amin: Yes, you are my advisor. You are the only one I can trust in here. You should have told me not to throw the Asians out, in the first place.
Nicholas Garrigan: I DID!
Idi Amin: But you did not persuade me, Nicholas. You did not persuade me!

 

[bilop]

Yes, indeed. That is why the “inverse golden rule” (do NOT do unto others what you would NOT wish them do unto you) is so much superior. The “regular” golden rule is fine for normal people, the inverse one is applicable to psychopaths and sociopaths. Fortunately these people a a mere handful and they do not want to be harmed, they wish to harm others. (Not even real “masochists” actually want real pain, they want make-believe pain to be stopped at their request). But, don’t you think it is telling that you had to appeal to psychopaths and sociopaths to make an “argument” against what I said…? I think it is most revealing.

Without an absolute standard of good and evil, how do we tell the psycopaths and sociopaths from the normal people? Is morality to be subject to a vote?

Without a supreme being to provide an absolute standard I don’t see how you can make any claim that your morality is better than the sociopath’s. No one claims a sheep is more moral than a shark.

God Bless

 

[Tietjen]

I think it is simple. If you would happen to be curious about the ways and means how do the new-agers think; to find out if there might be something rational behind their ideas, you would - perfectly reasonably - ask them to stop THEIR spiritual mumbo-jumbo about the curative powers of pyramids and special chrystals, and ask them to limit their arguments to secular, rational arguments. Don’t you think that such would be a rational request? I think so. It is rational to seek a common ground.

If I were to ask a “new-ager” a religous question, I wouldn’t expect then to limit them by saying you must answer without using any conjuctions; only 1 adjective per sentance; between the hours of 1pm and 1:13pm; OR that they had to answer in such a way that limited their answer by its very nature. But hey, that’s just me.

NOW, if I wanted to simply argue because I had no life, friends, etc., I’d put rules on their answers (because after all I make the rules) and regardless how they answered, I’d reject everything out of hand. Thankfully, I’m not that person.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, indeed. That is why the “inverse golden rule” (do NOT do unto others what you would NOT wish them do unto you) is so much superior. The “regular” golden rule is fine for normal people, the inverse one is applicable to psychopaths and sociopaths. Fortunately these people a a mere handful and they do not want to be harmed, they wish to harm others. (Not even real “masochists” actually want real pain, they want make-believe pain to be stopped at their request). But, don’t you think it is telling that you had to appeal to psychopaths and sociopaths to make an “argument” against what I said…? I think it is most revealing.

No, my example simply highlights the point that “normal” morality is a moving target. Even “normal” people act selfishly, disobeying the golden rule, causing harm to others in small ways or large while generally justifying their actions first.

 

[Robertanthony]

Trurl, the way you act on these forums/fora, the way you’ve been less than gracious with Julia Mae, I picture you as a Jabba the Hutt lying on a food-stained couch, demanding to be fed, all the while saying you don’t like this, don’t like that, “This isn’t palatable to a man of reason like me” etc. It all ends when you let a monstrous burp out. “American Beauty” is an Oscar-winning movie. I expect to see “banned” under your name soon. Consider trying to stop feeding your pride and bringing it to a manageable size before your time on Earth expires.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Without an absolute standard of good and evil, how do we tell the psycopaths and sociopaths from the normal people?

Through the use of the DSM criteria 301.7 for antisocial personality disorder.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

How come that so many people confuse the two propositions: “You know that X” and “You know ‘the teaching’ that X”? Let “X” be “extra-marital sex is sinful”, for example, or “non-procreative sex is sinful”, or something similar. People assert that we (others) KNOW that “X is sinful”… because WE HAVE BEEN TOLD. Is it really possible that they TRULY cannot comprehend the difference?

This problem is serious, after all one of the three requirements for something to be “mortally sinful” is that the person who commits the act must be “aware” (sometimes expressed as “fully aware”) that the act is a grave matter. No, I am not “aware” that such actions are a “grave matter”, however, I AM aware that SOME people consider them a grave matter. But this is only the opinion of those people, nothing more. And the opinion of those people is not accepted as valid, they have no credibility. After all how can one take those people seriously who cannot understand the difference between “You know that X” and “You know the teaching that X”?

There seems to be some context involved here beyond the mere distinction of two types of propositions. Let me analyze the propositions as they relate to believers first. Then look at the context.

(1) When someone freely chooses to assent to the Faith of the CC, they are saying as one does when received into the Church: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.”

This is based on the conviction that God’s word is handed on by scripture and tradition in the church. And so when the church formally teaches something on matters of faith and morals it is teaching the truth.

(2) So for a believer the statement “the church formally teaches that X is the case” means that “it is true that X is the case” or, simply put, “X is the case.” So let’s say a believer never knew “the church formally teaches that S is wrong.” When they have been TOLD so, then they (at least) believe that in fact “S is wrong.” They may at the time or only eventually also know that “S is wrong”…probably from natural law reasoning.

(3) Now let’s look at context. I don’t know what the case is but let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are not a believer. Let’s suppose further that a RC says to you “you’ve been told S is wrong;” and therefore if you do S, you are guilty of deliberately and culpably violating a law of God. This is so, they go on, because you were TOLD S is wrong therefore you knew S is wrong.

This is mistaken for two reasons: (a) even a given believer may not know it is wrong but only believes (correctly) that it is wrong based on the church’s teaching; and (b) you may go by the natural light of reason in formulating a moral code and may have not (yet) arrived at the conclusion that “S is wrong” and therefore do not know it even though you do know that it is taught.

(4) So the bottom line is: (a) for a believer regarding a formal teaching there is no functional difference between the propositions “You know the teaching that X” and “You believe that X” and “X is the case.” Sometimes it also includes “You know that X.” (b) for one who is not a believer there is an enormous difference between “You know the teaching that X” and “You know that X.” It is possible at times that the two are equivalent, as in stealing and murder being wrong. But in those cases it is not “You know the teaching that X” therefore “you know that X.” It is rather “You know the teaching that X” and coincidentally “you know that X.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There seems to be some context involved here beyond the mere distinction of two types of propositions.

This thread forked off from the thread about people choosing hell. In the thread it was noted that there is often a polarization of the position of people that have heard about one of the christian religions as either (1) accepting it as truth and conforming to choose heaven or (2) rejecting the available salvation and choosing hell. But this view either disregards people that have heard but were not convinced or falsely cast them into a position that isn’t theirs.

Here is something from a religion that might help illustrate what this is like.

“The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and been faithful with all things He puts into our possession. We are created, we are born for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood, to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven. That is the truth about it, just as it is”

So do you choose to accept your position in the Celestial kingdom, or have you decided instead go to one of the other places reserved for people after they die? Now that I’ve told you this you know about it. So you’ll you’ll either need to choose the celestial kingdom or one of the other places.

 

[PRmerger]

As long as it is mutually agreed upon and no third party is affected, it is NONE of your … business. (Fill in the dots with something that is not allowed to be spelled out. The rules must be observed and obeyed.)

This is an interesting paradigm.

What if the third party doesn’t know about it, and is therefore not affected, is that then ok?

For example, in an extra-marital affair. If the wife doesn’t know, is it morally licit for the husband to engage in a sexual liaison with another person, provided that the wife is never affected?

 

[Trurl]

If I were to ask a “new-ager” a religous question, I wouldn’t expect then to limit them by saying you must answer without using any conjuctions; only 1 adjective per sentance; between the hours of 1pm and 1:13pm; OR that they had to answer in such a way that limited their answer by its very nature. But hey, that’s just me.

If I would ask a “religious” question, for example, if I would ask what kind of biblical underpinning is for a certain assertion, then yes, it would be ridiculous on my part to stipulate that only secular answers are acceptable.

But my questions are different. I specifically ask for secular underpinning for religious concepts or doctrines. The reason is that this is what I am curious about. Yes, I am aware that this board is devoted to catholicism. However, this is the “philosophy” saection, not the “apologetics” section. I see no problem with restricting the conversation to a certain subset of arguments. If someone is dissatisfied with these stipulations, they are totally free not to put in their 2 cents.

 

[Trurl]

No, my example simply highlights the point that “normal” morality is a moving target.

Very true. Public nudity is considered unacceptable (or immoral) in the Central Park, but it is not problematic in a nudist colony. Yes, “normal morality” is contingent upon the situation, the circumstances, the time and the place. You may call it “relative” morality, if you so choose. But I would suggest not to say it with “disdain”, after all there is no more “relative” morality than saying: “genocide is evil if performed by humans” but it is “perfectly moral behavior is performed by God” - because you would commit the fallacy of “special pleading”.

 

[Trurl]

There seems to be some context involved here beyond the mere distinction of two types of propositions. Let me analyze the propositions as they relate to believers first. Then look at the context.

(1) When someone freely chooses to assent to the Faith of the CC, they are saying as one does when received into the Church: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.”

This is based on the conviction that God’s word is handed on by scripture and tradition in the church. And so when the church formally teaches something on matters of faith and morals it is teaching the truth.

(2) So for a believer the statement “the church formally teaches that X is the case” means that “it is true that X is the case” or, simply put, “X is the case.” So let’s say a believer never knew “the church formally teaches that S is wrong.” When they have been TOLD so, then they (at least) believe that in fact “S is wrong.” They may at the time or only eventually also know that “S is wrong”…probably from natural law reasoning.

(3) Now let’s look at context. I don’t know what the case is but let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are not a believer. Let’s suppose further that a RC says to you “you’ve been told S is wrong;” and therefore if you do S, you are guilty of deliberately and culpably violating a law of God. This is so, they go on, because you were TOLD S is wrong therefore you knew S is wrong.

This is mistaken for two reasons: (a) even a given believer may not know it is wrong but only believes (correctly) that it is wrong based on the church’s teaching; and (b) you may go by the natural light of reason in formulating a moral code and may have not (yet) arrived at the conclusion that “S is wrong” and therefore do not know it even though you do know that it is taught.

(4) So the bottom line is: (a) for a believer regarding a formal teaching there is no functional difference between the propositions “You know the teaching that X” and “You believe that X” and “X is the case.” Sometimes it also includes “You know that X.” (b) for one who is not a believer there is an enormous difference between “You know the teaching that X” and “You know that X.” It is possible at times that the two are equivalent, as in stealing and murder being wrong. But in those cases it is not “You know the teaching that X” therefore “you know that X.” It is rather “You know the teaching that X” and coincidentally “you know that X.”

Excellent analysis. However, I would go into the details a bit deeper.

First, it seems to me that you make a distinction: a specific act is a “mortal sin” for a catholic, but not for an atheist. Is this a correct assessment of what you posted? (I applied a highlight to show the part I am referring to).

Second, I would make the subdivision into more categories then just “believers” and “non-believers”. Believers do not form a monolithic “mass”. There are christians and other theists. Within the christians there are catholics and protestants. Even within the catholics there are the orthodox ones and the “others” (heretics?).

Is there a different set of “rules” to decide if an act is performed by someone in those different groups?

 

[Trurl]

This is an interesting paradigm.

What if the third party doesn’t know about it, and is therefore not affected, is that then ok?

For example, in an extra-marital affair. If the wife doesn’t know, is it morally licit for the husband to engage in a sexual liaison with another person, provided that the wife is never affected?

Let’s see: “how can you make absolutely sure that the wife will never know about it”? Or “never” affected. (After all the possible marital performance of the husband would be affected - there is always a “recovery period”) It seems next to impossible. But even in this extremely unlikely case there is a difference. IF the original marriage contract between the husband and wife stipulated fidelity, then the extra-marital affair is wrong, because it would be breaking one’s promise. There is no need to restrict it to the marriage contract. The breaking of any contractual agreement is problematic, and possibly serious. There can be no generic “rule” here, the different cases must be considered individually.

 

[PRmerger]

But even in this extremely unlikely case there is a difference. IF the original marriage contract between the husband and wife stipulated fidelity, then the extra-marital affair is wrong, because it would be breaking one’s promise. There is no need to restrict it to the marriage contract. The breaking of any contractual agreement is problematic, and possibly serious. There can be no generic “rule” here, the different cases must be considered individually.

Ok. Let’s just take this “unlikely case”.

Why is it harmful if the 3rd party doesn’t know about it?

Are you saying that there’s a principle here? That it’s wrong on principle to break an agreement, even if no one is putatively harmed by it?

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s see: “how can you make absolutely sure that the wife will never know about it”? Or “never” affected. (After all the possible marital performance of the husband would be affected - there is always a “recovery period”) It seems next to impossible.

Fair enough.

So let’s just take the event on its merit. The wife may find out. Or she may never know. Is the sexual act wrong at the moment the adultery occurs?

Or is it only wrong if the wife finds out?

And at what point was it wrong? If the adultery occurred on February 14 and the wife finds out on May 14 does the sexual act become immoral on May 14? Or Feb 14?

 

[Peter_Plato]

How come that so many people confuse the two propositions: “You know that X” and “You know ‘the teaching’ that X”? Let “X” be “extra-marital sex is sinful”, for example, or “non-procreative sex is sinful”, or something similar. People assert that we (others) KNOW that “X is sinful”… because WE HAVE BEEN TOLD. Is it really possible that they TRULY cannot comprehend the difference?

It is not a matter of not comprehending the issue, but of whether the difference makes as much of a difference as you claim that it does.

Apply your thinking to civil or state laws: How do most people come to know what the laws are? Typically via third party means. They have been told by someone (the news, their neighbor, a state or city sponsored advert), so, provided the source is a credible one, “most people” would simply equate “I have been told” and “I know” because they see hearing from the third party source as tantamount to hearing it “from the horse’s mouth.” There will be times when this process is called into question, but generally this is how people function because we tend to trust others. Rarely do you find individuals as scrupulously Type A, as you seem to be, who would insist on going to the “book” of the law itself to verify every matter personally, but, hey, to each his own, I guess.

In addition, if one is charged under the law for some offense, it would seem a peculiar defense, to claim “I didn’t know the law because I didn’t actually look it up myself, I had heard that x was the law from others but never had the time to look into it. Therefore, I plead ignorance.”

This problem is serious, after all one of the three requirements for something to be “mortally sinful” is that the person who commits the act must be “aware” (sometimes expressed as “fully aware”) that the act is a grave matter. No, I am not “aware” that such actions are a “grave matter”, however, I AM aware that SOME people consider them a grave matter. But this is only the opinion of those people, nothing more.

That depends upon whether these people whose “opinions” matter or not are in positions of authority to make public their “opinions” that are identical to the laws that bind. The Church is in that position vis a vis God. Certainly that fact can be accepted or denied by you, but your assent is not what counts, it is the assent and authority of God behind it that counts.

You could claim, I guess, that “I didn’t know that, but was only ‘told’ it by others.” We’ll see how that holds up when you come before God at the final judgement. Perhaps the fact that such a defense wouldn’t hold up in a civil court of law, could be a “heads up” signal to you to do some rethinking.

Now, it is very likely, that what you mean by “I know x” is more like, “I agree with x.” So what you are actually arguing is that moral laws should only apply to you if they are acceptable to you. Again, this view is problematic even in civil law, where the law is considered binding on all parties irrespective of whether they buy in or not. My strong suspicion is that moral law has an even stronger “imperative” demand. It is morally binding whether you agree or not.

Invincible ignorance might mitigate culpability to some extent, but vincible ignorance or even pretense under the guise of ignorance (I was told that but I didn’t “know” {read: accept} know that.) would seem a weak leg of ignorance to stand on.

And the opinion of those people is not accepted as valid, they have no credibility. After all how can one take those people seriously who cannot understand the difference between “You know that X” and “You know the teaching that X”?

Good point! You don’t accept the opinion of “those people,” who have no credibility with you, because they have not passed your “test” of credibility. Apparently, using the same logic, you would not accept the “opinion” of a judge who didn’t recognize the difference between, “I didn’t know that!” and “Everyone around me knew that, but I am too smart to think that what they think they know is the same as what is actually true.”

This seems to me the problem of someone who is convinced that their own intelligence supercedes reality. Something is real and true because it is believed by them to be so: “My thinking it is sufficient to make it true.”

NOTE: I am on this quoted poster’s ignore list, but his opening post to this thread is so weakly tendentious that he needs to be made aware of it. Anyone who finds my reply to be an adequate rebuttal of his points, please quote this and post, so at least he has the opportunity to read it.

 

[bilop]

Through the use of the DSM criteria 301.7 for antisocial personality disorder.

So a bunch of shrinks is now an absolute source? Please.

The progressives denounce religion, and then they go and make idols out of pseudo-sciences (psychiatry, sociology, environmentalism, etc.).

God Bless

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So a bunch of shrinks is now an absolute source? Please.

A precondition in your question was the absence of an absolute moral standard. Your question was on how psychopaths are distinguished from normal people. In the USA the criteria for all mental disorders recognized by the US health system is catalogued in the DSM (If you are in another country there may be a different volume with the diagnosis information). While psychopathy may have an impact on one’s moral concerns diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder is not a moral judgement which makes the precondition that you had asked for to be somewhat superfluous. The diagnostic criteria is determined by a collaboration of those in the mental health profession.

(The DSM list psycopathy and sociopathy is other terms by which antisocial personality disorder is labeled, so I use them as synonyms. Antisocial personality disorder is the primary label used).

If you would like to check yourself and if you are in the USA you may be able to find a copy of the DSM at your local library. The book is a bit expensive. But they are available for purchase too. I’ve got my own copy that I lend out to others that need to use it as a reference.

The progressives denounce religion, and then they go and make idols out of pseudo-sciences (psychiatry, sociology, environmentalism, etc.).

I’ll take this as a general comment since there was nothing in my previous reply that denounced religion. Nor was there any formation of idols.

 

[bilop]

A precondition in your question was the absence of an absolute moral standard. Your question was on how psychopaths are distinguished from normal people. In the USA the criteria for all mental disorders recognized by the US health system is catalogued in the DSM (If you are in another country there may be a different volume with the diagnosis information). While psychopathy may have an impact on one’s moral concerns diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder is not a moral judgement which makes the precondition that you had asked for to be somewhat superfluous. The diagnostic criteria is determined by a collaboration of those in the mental health profession.

(The DSM list psycopathy and sociopathy is other terms by which antisocial personality disorder is labeled, so I use them as synonyms. Antisocial personality disorder is the primary label used).

If you would like to check yourself and if you are in the USA you may be able to find a copy of the DSM at your local library. The book is a bit expensive. But they are available for purchase too. I’ve got my own copy that I lend out to others that need to use it as a reference.

I’ll take this as a general comment since there was nothing in my previous reply that denounced religion. Nor was there any formation of idols.

And the DSM implicitly relies on Judeo-Christian morality to define people who act in a deviant manner. Not long ago, homosexuality was categorized as a mental illness in the DSM.

At the end of the day, a socio- or psychpath is just someone who violates the moral conventions of that society. In the US, Hitler, Himmler and Mengle are sociopaths, in Nazi Germany, heroes.