In what way is it sinful to help non-believers?

[jmcrae]

Because of this I don’t understand how something apparently metaphysically insignificant (a man’s hunger) is morally significant. Why is this?

Jesus didn’t command us to worry about metaphysics; He commanded us to feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, clothe the naked, comfort the grieving, befriend the lonely, and heal the sick. He didn’t set any limits on these or say, “But only do these things for other Christians.” He commanded us to do them even to our enemies.

 

[fakename]

Jesus didn’t command us to worry about metaphysics; He commanded us to feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, clothe the naked, comfort the grieving, befriend the lonely, and heal the sick. He didn’t set any limits on these or say, “But only do these things for other Christians.” He commanded us to do them even to our enemies.

Well I follow the command well enough, but I’m not sure why I should vis-a-vis first philosophy.

In any case though, metaphysics is a duty since it is an integral part of human happiness, since happiness consists in nothing but the most abstract wisdom (the vision of God). But in this life, metaphysics is the most abstract wisdom and people pursue it in order to be happy.

Perhaps I’m not seeing the reason for worrying about hunger -instead of being concerned about a man’s hunger (a trifling thing in the end, for people want to go hungry voluntarily sometimes) I should be concerned with a man’s nature which is preserved only through food. So feeding is moral in so far as it preserves man’s nature but a man shouldn’t worry about a starving penitent since the penitent is starving in order to better preserve his life in the future. Is this true?

 

[jmcrae]

Well I follow the command well enough, but I’m not sure why I should vis-a-vis first philosophy.

I have very little idea what this means.

In any case though, metaphysics is a duty since it is an integral part of human happiness, since happiness consists in nothing but the most abstract wisdom (the vision of God).

Actually, happiness consists in being of useful service to others, and having friendship with God.

Perhaps I’m not seeing the reason for worrying about hunger -instead of being concerned about a man’s hunger (a trifling thing in the end, for people want to go hungry voluntarily sometimes) I should be concerned with a man’s nature which is preserved only through food. So feeding is moral in so far as it preserves man’s nature but a man shouldn’t worry about a starving penitent since the penitent is starving in order to better preserve his life in the future. Is this true?

There is a strong difference between someone who is fasting or dieting, and someone who is actually starving. You don’t have to feed someone who is fasting or dieting, and in fact they wouldn’t ask you to.

But if someone is starving (that is, they need to eat, but they don’t have access to food for some reason) then it’s important that we feed them. It is also hospitable to feed guests if they happen to be in our house at meal time, even if they aren’t starving, and presuming that they are neither dieting nor fasting.

 

[fakename]

I have very little idea what this means.

Actually, happiness consists in being of useful service to others, and having friendship with God.

There is a strong difference between someone who is fasting or dieting, and someone who is actually starving. You don’t have to feed someone who is fasting or dieting, and in fact they wouldn’t ask you to.

But if someone is starving (that is, they need to eat, but they don’t have access to food for some reason) then it’s important that we feed them. It is also hospitable to feed guests if they happen to be in our house at meal time, even if they aren’t starving, and presuming that they are neither dieting nor fasting.

Friendship with God is essentially friendship with self-subsisting truth and so is the height of philosophy, for it is to be intimately one with the true.

As for the starving/fasting issue, clearly the difference is based on the end -for a person can starve themselves to fast in order to perform a supererogatory work?

 

[jmcrae]

Friendship with God is essentially friendship with self-subsisting truth and so is the height of philosophy, for it is to be intimately one with the true.

I’ll take your word for it.

As for the starving/fasting issue, clearly the difference is based on the end -for a person can starve themselves to fast in order to perform a supererogatory work?

I know that at one time, it seemed as if it was the “done” thing to kill oneself by starvation at a young age for penance, but nowadays, spiritual directors forbid penitents from taking it that far; if you do a penitential fast, you are required to be under medical supervision, and you must at least drink water and take vitamins - you aren’t allowed to actually starve yourself.

 

[fakename]

I’ll take your word for it.

I know that at one time, it seemed as if it was the “done” thing to kill oneself by starvation at a young age for penance, but nowadays, spiritual directors forbid penitents from taking it that far; if you do a penitential fast, you are required to be under medical supervision, and you must at least drink water and take vitamins - you aren’t allowed to actually starve yourself.

well one shouldn’t kill oneself, I think that’s problem one with too little food but is it really true that heroic self-denial is wrong?

Finally, is my point about the difference between feeding-as-end vs feeding-as-means-to-an-end true?

 

[revert_jen]

Friendship with God is essentially friendship with self-subsisting truth and so is the height of philosophy, for it is to be intimately one with the true.

As for the starving/fasting issue, clearly the difference is based on the end -for a person can starve themselves to fast in order to perform a supererogatory work?

Philosophy is compatible with faith, but it needs to be the servant of faith, not the master.

If you are a believing Catholic, there are several reasons to feed the hungry:

1. Jesus told us to.
2. The Church tells us to.
3. St. Thomas Aquinas, a few months before his death, said, “I can write no more. All that I have written seems like straw.” Aquinas was a great genius, an extremely holy man, and he had spent most of his adult life writing. His works are of incomparable value to all Catholics, and to some extent non-Catholics as well. But he was right that philosophy is like straw compared to the love of God. And God loves all people, even atheists.

When you find your understanding of philosophy going against the teachings of the Church (let alone the direct teachings of Jesus!), your understanding of philosophy is wrong. Humility is your friend here. It’s a hard hurdle to jump, but worth it. You’ll get a better signal-to-noise ratio in responses if you make it clear that you know you are missing something in your reasoning, but are not sure what it is.

Philosophy is not capable of providing all the knowledge of God that humans can attain. For one thing, humans are not thinking machines. God is not merely the Truth, he is also the Way and the Life. It is not enough to know about God, you must also know God Himself. He is not merely wisdom, but love as well.

In any case, as someone else has pointed out, from a purely practical standpoint, dead people don’t convert.

And as someone else pointed out, if you feel all sinners should starve to death, then that means all humans over the age of reason should starve to death. There are not two classes of people, sinners and non-sinners. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Finally, metaphysics is not the source of morals. Metaphysics is a study of human nature, not the source of it. The source of morals is God and revelation. Metaphysics is useful for understanding the purpose of the content of morality, and understanding the purpose of human life. It does NOT determine what that content and purpose will be.

–Jen

 

[meltzerboy]

well clearly morals are based on metaphysics since the only reason man is subject to morality is because humanness is subject to a teleological cause. That is the laws of metaphysics are the laws of morality stated differently.

Because of this I don’t understand how something apparently metaphysically insignificant (a man’s hunger) is morally significant. Why is this?

( I’m actually quite nice in normal life but the only difference is that I don’t think I have any good reason to be nice).

I haven’t taken a basic philosophy course in a long time, but I seem to remember there are branches of philosophy–albeit interrelated–which include metaphysics, epistemology, logic, aesthetics, and ethics. Is the latter in fact based on metaphysics? No offense, but you sound like one of my college students, theoretically-minded and idealistic to the point of arguing against yourself. If so, try to retain some of those features, because life has a way of depleting them.

 

[fakename]

Let me make this clear: I am asking the question out of humility, in order to understand the church’s teaching, for I already know the church’s teaching but I don’t know why the church teachings are as they are.

And in other threads too, I’ve shown that logically, starving all sinners would be contradictory to my own preservation. But my only problem is that I can’t find an alternative moral explanation that allows one to help sinners.

That being said I consider that metaphysics underlies morals and I’m interested in the account of morality that others are proposing (namely that morals are somehow exterior to metaphysics). But from all my experience, it seems that metaphysics is the basis of morality not as one science underlies another but as one real thing is a substrate for another real thing. For instance, the reality that parents are principles of your being, and the reality that things tend to return to their causes (since the cause contains the essence and the essence always seeks its own good) are the metaphysical underpinnings of, and justifications for, loving your parents. Similarly the fact that man’s soul is perfected only through knowledge and through God (who is the very exemplar of all things man knows), provides the definition of the moral life: a life lived in reason and ratiocination.

I can be called a young idealist though I prefer the term imminent idealist as a better description of Aquinas’s and Catholicism’s teachings.

 

[valentino]

That is, is it ever wrong to help non-believers because they are non-believers?

how could it possibly be wrong to help a non believer?Give me an example of what you might be thinking of.

 

[fakename]

how could it possibly be wrong to help a non believer?Give me an example of what you might be thinking of.

I think I gave examples in past pages on the thread?

 

[Catholic90]

Helping someone in need is not a sin, whether or not they are Catholic, wiccan, pagan, or other. Period.

Jesus did not say clothe, feed, and help someone, but only if they are Catholic.

He just said clothe, feed, and help people. Period.

What you do to the least of my people, you do for me. All are God’s people, whether the people accept God or not.

 

[Lui]

But my only problem is that I can’t find an alternative moral explanation that allows one to help sinners.

You mean **other **sinners. Catholics are just as much sinners as everybody else. I know some Catholics might believe they are holier than others and free of sin but that’s their problem.

 

[fakename]

Let me make this clear: I am asking the question out of humility, in order to understand the church’s teaching, for I already know the church’s teaching but I don’t know why the church teachings are as they are.

And in other threads too, I’ve shown that logically, starving all sinners would be contradictory to my own preservation. But my only problem is that I can’t find an alternative moral explanation that allows one to help sinners.

That being said I consider that metaphysics underlies morals and I’m interested in the account of morality that others are proposing (namely that morals are somehow exterior to metaphysics). But from all my experience, it seems that metaphysics is the basis of morality not as one science underlies another but as one real thing is a substrate for another real thing. For instance, the reality that parents are principles of your being, and the reality that things tend to return to their causes (since the cause contains the essence and the essence always seeks its own good) are the metaphysical underpinnings of, and justifications for, loving your parents. Similarly the fact that man’s soul is perfected only through knowledge and through God (who is the very exemplar of all things man knows), provides the definition of the moral life: a life lived in reason and ratiocination.

I can be called a young idealist though I prefer the term imminent idealist as a better description of Aquinas’s and Catholicism’s teachings.

So how’s my metaphysics of morals -is it correct that feeding a hungry man is good since it helps him attain higher happiness?

 

[Catholic90]

So how’s my metaphysics of morals -is it correct that feeding a hungry man is good since it helps him attain higher happiness?

Forget metaphysics and all the philosophy mumbo-jumbo. If someone is hungry, feed them. Period.

 

[fakename]

Forget metaphysics and all the philosophy mumbo-jumbo. If someone is hungry, feed them. Period.

I already feed the hungry, but there’s gotta be a metaphysical reason underlying it. As Kreeft wrote, morality increases someone’s perfection in being. Note the world “being”, clearly then morality is connected with metaphysics on some level.

I think that in this case, the metaphysics lies in allowing the hungry man to reach the good life (the height of metaphysical perfection). Is this true?