Is the latest morality the best?

[Charlemagne_III]

I sure can. I did. I offer the one which I already expressed. “Evil is the intentional causation of gratuitous harm to someone”.

I’m confident you did not mean to offer this as a comprehensive definition of evil, but only as a partial one. Yes, there are “shalt nots,” such as "gratuitous harm, but there are also “shalts,” as in the case of intentionally helping others when they are in need.

Not only must we refrain from doing harm to others, but we must also consider our obligation to do good for others, and the failure to do so is likewise evil.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

“Love one another.” Hating others always does intentional harm, whether to the other or to the self.

Read the last three paragraphs of Matthew 25 if you are in doubt about this.

Most of all, we do evil to ourselves when we abandon God and set ourselves up as the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong. It is the social sickness of the last two hundred years. The world is in a moral swamp without God in our lives and when we yield our will to Satan’s cause.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yea I have an objection. Let’s call it the “German villager” objection. You illustrate it perfectly right here:

No, let’s not rush to conclusions in the face of obvious evil, let’s find ways to rationalize it.

I am not interested in illustrations, rather in a working definition of “evil”. Until you can provide one, there cannot be a rationalization.

Let’s look at “harm”.

We all know what harm is. It can be physical or psychological. One can only do “harm” to living beings. You cannot harm a piece of rock by chopping it into pieces. Harm is disrupting or ending the life of a being. But that is not all. We do “harm” to a carrot by pulling it up and eating it (alive! no less ). But the carrot has no nervous system, and it does not “care” about itself. So the harm does not matter for beings without a nervous system and a pleasure / pain center in the brain.

Consequently we only care about the harm done to living AND feeling beings. Now that perceived harm may lead to some greater good, or may not. This second type is called gratuitous harm.

So I presented the definition of “evil” as follows: “Volitionally causing or allowing gratuitous harm to a living and feeling being, which does not consent to this harm - as long as you have the power to prevent it”.

Doing good is far more than not doing harm.

That is fine. But that would be the next step. Until there a mutually acceptable definition of evil, there is no way to take it. Is there any objection to this definition of “evil”? Do you wish to add something to it, or remove something from it?

I take it English may not be your first language. You write first that there is no definition and then that the missing definition is circular. A bit muddled? Perhaps your problem is not in the writing but in the reading.

You misunderstood what I said. “Evil” is undefined and “morality” was defined in a circular manner. Apples and oranges.

Do you mean acts such as adultery, euthanasia, prostitution, rape, beastiality, slavery, bribery, etc. are, absent a context, morally neutral acts in your code?

These are MUCH MORE than “acts”, they are acts and intentions and circumstances combined into one. An act would be “wielding a knife”, or “pulling the trigger of a gun”. Without the surrounding intent AND the goal AND the circumstances there can be no “evaluation” of these acts.

The problem with the usual Catholic approach is that it tries to separate the three fonts and attempts evaluate them in a “sterile” or “standalone” manner.

So, returning to a question I asked you earlier, is abortion evil?

As long as there is no mutually accepted definition of “evil” there can be no answer. In my opinion, under certain cases, yes, it is. Just like taking the life of an adult can be evil in certain circumstances, and not evil in others.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As long as there is no mutually accepted definition of “evil” there can be no answer. In my opinion, under certain cases, yes, it is. Just like taking the life of an adult can be evil in certain circumstances, and not evil in others.

In what circumstances would abortion not be evil, whereas in other cases it would be evil?

Are some unborn children disposable, whereas others are not?

In what instance of abortion is “gratuitous harm” not done to the unborn?

Think this through and present a reasonable case rather than a feminist screed?

 

[o_mlly]

… So I presented the definition of “evil” as follows: “Volitionally causing or allowing gratuitous harm to a living and feeling being, which does not consent to this harm - as long as you have the power to prevent it”.

Your definition of evil evolves with each new post. Your latest version still remain defective. A tsunami that harms or kills human beings causes evil. Stay with the simple Catholic definition of evil – evil is a privation of being.

These are MUCH MORE than “acts”, they are acts and intentions and circumstances combined into one. An act would be “wielding a knife”, or “pulling the trigger of a gun”. Without the surrounding intent AND the goal AND the circumstances there can be no “evaluation” of these acts.

You are mistaken. These acts do not imply any intention or circumstance. These acts are always and everywhere evil regardless of any intention or any circumstance.

Make the case that some set of intentions or circumstances render beastiality a good act. Too hard? Try adultery. Too hard? Try prostitution.

The problem with the usual Catholic approach is that it tries to separate the three fonts and attempts evaluate them in a “sterile” or “standalone” manner.

Your problem with Catholic moral theology is primarily that you don’t understand. Nevertheless, you may reject our system but the alternate morality you suggest in your various and ever modified posts is quite juvenile.

 

[o_mlly]

… Correction:
*You are mistaken. These acts do not imply any intention or circumstance. *

With the exception of adultery which implies only one circumstance but no intention.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Your latest version still remain defective. A tsunami that harms or kills human beings causes evil. Stay with the simple Catholic definition of evil – evil is a privation of being.

A tsunami is not a volitional act of nature. What is defective about the definition I gave?

The Catholic definition is too vague. Lack of rain in a drought stricken area would be “evil” under it. A cat “playing” with the mouse would be evil. The phrase “natural evil” is just a euphemism. There is nothing “evil” about an avalanche.

You are mistaken. These acts do not imply any intention or circumstance. These acts are always and everywhere evil regardless of any intention or any circumstance.

Without a mutually accepted definition of evil there is no reason to look at specifics.

Your problem with Catholic moral theology is primarily that you don’t understand. Nevertheless, you may reject our system but the alternate morality you suggest in your various and ever modified posts is quite juvenile.

That is not a constructive criticism.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

Evil is the absence of good.

God is goodness itself, the ultimate fulfillment of our desires.
It is His will that we find Him.

We journey on the living Way to Him by doing His will.
God is Love and His will is to love one another and to love Love above all else.
When we give of ourselves to who and what is other, we become more like Christ, who is the one true vine of humanity.
Coming together as a Church, we form the body of Christ.
In Christ, through the Holy Spirit, we commune with the Father.
It is God’s will that we participate in the Trinity.

When our actions deviate from the two primary commandments, they are evil.

The rewards of being good are those that follow from God’a nature.
By His grace: we see and appreciate more fully truth and beauty;
we are more alive and truly free, even if imprisonned by worldly powers;
we become more giving and caring.

The rewards of sin, of evil acts are death.
Of course, we are all sinners, and when we fall, Christ is there to catch us to make it right again.

 

[o_mlly]

:twocents:

Evil is the absence of good. …

Aquinas’ reply:
"I answer that, Goodness and being are really the same … "
newadvent.org/summa/1005.htm

 

[Aloysium]

Aquinas’ reply:
"I answer that, Goodness and being are really the same … "
newadvent.org/summa/1005.htm

Which makes sense to me because nothing exists in isolation.
The Trinity, Existence itself is relational - Love.
And, everything that springs from God is related to Him as the ultimate other, united in love.
So to be good, to be giving of ourselves, treating the other as we would ourselves, is to be our true selves, Christ-like.
Acting in ways that are contrary to God’s will is to not be true to who we are meant to be and contrary to what is good.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Your definition of evil evolves with each new post.

Not really. I just did not present the whole definition in one fell swoop, because I was afraid that it is too much to digest. And this fear was not unfounded, since even now you did not get the most important part, the “volitional” aspect of harm. Please read on.

Your latest version still remain defective. A tsunami that harms or kills human beings causes evil. Stay with the simple Catholic definition of evil – evil is a privation of being.

A tsunami is not a volitional act of nature. What is defective about the definition I gave?

The Catholic definition is too vague. Lack of rain in a drought stricken area would be “evil” under it. A cat “playing” with the mouse would be evil. The phrase “natural evil” is just a mixture of two different concepts, and it serves one purpose only: the muddying of waters, to spread confusion. Nature is neither “good”, nor “bad”, it is totally “indifferent”. There is nothing “evil” about an avalanche or a meteor strike.

You are mistaken. These acts do not imply any intention or circumstance. These acts are always and everywhere evil regardless of any intention or any circumstance.

Without a mutually accepted definition of evil there is no reason to look at specifics. They most certainly include intents and/or circumstances. They are not “simple” acts (to kill), rather “well-qualified” acts (to murder). And they are only evil if they are performed without consent.

Your problem with Catholic moral theology is primarily that you don’t understand. Nevertheless, you may reject our system but the alternate morality you suggest in your various and ever modified posts is quite juvenile.

To call others “juvenile” is insulting and not a constructive criticism. By the way, I did not suggest any alternate system, I am only concerned with the definition of “evil”.

With the exception of adultery which implies only one circumstance but no intention.

As soon as the circumstances are taken into consideration, the evaluation of the act becomes “relative” and not absolute.

Evil is the absence of good.

In normal (secular) language, the “absence of good” is “not good” (or ungood in Newspeak). The opposite of “good” is “bad”. Do you really suggest that “evil” is the synonym of “bad”? Is so, then one of these words is superfluous, and should be eliminated.

Aquinas’ reply:
"I answer that, Goodness and being are really the same … "
newadvent.org/summa/1005.htm

As we go on, I get more and more discouraged. A few posts ago Charlemagne suggested that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a mutually agreeable definition of “evil”. As much as it saddens me, it looks like that he was right. We seem to speak to different languages, where words might accidently contain the same letters, but we assign different meanings to them. In other words we talk past each other.

As for Aquinas, I wonder what the words “goodness” and “being” actually MEAN? In my world, “goodness” is a concept which describes a positive action or environment, and “being” is the synonym of existence. Therefore the translation of his proposition would be: “goodness is equivalent to existence”, or “it is good to exist”. If that is the proper translation, then I would challenge everyone to perform a thought experiment. I would prefer a real experiment, but that does no seem possible. In this thought experiment I would watch your reaction as someone piles more and more pain and suffering on you, while making sure that you will not be eliminated from existence. I would bet everything that eventually you would beg to be killed and spared the agony of the “goodness of being”. I base this prediction upon the concept of “Room one-oh-one”. For everyone there is something that is unendurably horrible, when nonexistence is the preferred option.

Existence is neither good, nor bad, it is the foundation for good (pleasurable) or bad (painful) existence. Just think of the number line, where the positive values describe “good” existence, negative values designate “bad” existence, and the zero indicates the “lack of existence”.

Vera_Ljuba

 

[o_mlly]

… I just did not present the whole definition in one fell swoop, because I was afraid that it is too much to digest. …
The Catholic definition is too vague…
There is nothing “evil” about an avalanche or a meteor strike. …

See this site’s mission statement. The site’s goal is “bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world” not your erroneous views.

IMHO the posters have attempted to meet our goal on this thread. And again, you may certainly reject the truths of our 2000 years of intellectual tradition as you have.

See Matthew 10:14.

Peace.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As long as there is no mutually accepted definition of “evil” there can be no answer. In my opinion, under certain cases, yes, it is. Just like taking the life of an adult can be evil in certain circumstances, and not evil in others.

?

This was your response to the question about what instances of abortion would not constitute a gratuitous infliction of harm on the unborn.

Do you mean this to be your final answer?

That it may not be evil to kill some unborn but o.k. to kill others?

What set of circumstances makes one group fair game for “gratuitous harm” but others not according to you definition of evil?

 

[goout]

Nope. That is not a definition, it is an illustration. But it can be used as a starting point. By the way, if that picture would be about a fakir in India, who intentionally deprives his own body of necessary nutrients, to gain some “spiritual growth”, then it would not be an illustration of “evil”. So, let’s not rush to conclusions.

Now, if you would say that intentionally inflicting gratuitous harm on others is evil, that would be an excellent start, and I would agree with you.

But the question is not that simple. It is my understanding that you (not necessarily personal “you”) also consider the loving relationship between two people “evil” when the physical expression of that love excludes procreation (same sex, or active artificial birth control). And that makes the common definition of “evil” very unlikely, if not downright impossible. That is the reason why I feel discouraged when I contemplate the possibility of a mutual understanding with a certain subset of Christians.

Certain activities that no one else would declare “evil” is considered “evil” by these people. So, how can we arrive at a mutually acceptable definition of “evil”? Any ideas?

Evil is a lack of good. Or a void.
What many people do not understand is this reference to the objective good.
All of morality has as it’s end, an objective good.

You reference the Church’s objection to equating same sex relationship with marriage.
What is the basis for the objection? Does the Church merely want to deny human beings satisfying relationships because they are “different”? Hardly.

What is the good end? The good end is the existence and flourishing of human beings. Only the union of a man and woman cooperates (pro-creates) to this end. No other relationship can do this.
So the Church observes that equating same sex with relationships is dishonest and detracts from the value of that which it attempts to equalize itself with. (similar to making pets and human beings equal on the intrinsic worth scale).

And in almost the same breath, when confronted with a picture of a starving POW, you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge a serious dent in human dignity there.

You picked an outrageous analogy,
-comparing to someone who might choose starvation-,
to justify your a-moral blindness.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

See this site’s mission statement. The site’s goal is “bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world” not your erroneous views.

I don’t think that you accurately represent the Catholic “truth”. (Btw, there is no separate Catholic truth and a separate Presbyterian truth or Baptist truth or secular truth; a proposition is either true or not). I seriously doubt that the Catholic church does not differentiate between a spontaneous miscarriage and an abortion - and calls both of them “evil”. Or that it considers an unintentional (accidental) homicide the same as a premeditated murder. The synonyms of evil are “wicked” or “malevolent”… and no sane person would call a meteor strike “malevolent”. I suggest you call a “bad” act “evil”, only if you can substitute the word “bad” with “malevolent”.

By the way, despite your claims you still did not point out the “error” in my definition.

Do you mean this to be your final answer?

No, it was not an answer at all. Until we can agree on the precise definition of “evil”, there cannot be a conversation.

And in almost the same breath, when confronted with a picture of a starving POW, you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge a serious dent in human dignity there.

My answer was directed to point out the incorrect principle that “a picture is worth more than a thousand words”. The picture did not say that the person was a POW or a fakir in India. Without words the picture is insufficient information. IF that person is really a POW, THEN the people who did it to him are definitely evil.

My point is that you need ALL the information (the WHAT, the WHY and the HOW), not just the raw act itself to make a judgment call.

Vera_Ljuba

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, it was not an answer at all. Until we can agree on the precise definition of “evil”, there cannot be a conversation.Vera_Ljuba

I agree it was not an answer at all, but I worked from your definition of evil. You are not satisfied with your own definition? Until you come up with a more precise definition, I guess you will successfully evade the issue?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I agree it was not an answer at all, but I worked from your definition of evil.

Ah, so you agreed to my definition? You forgot to mention it. If that is the case then I can answer. Let’s recap the definition, which you accepted:

Volitionally causing or allowing gratuitous harm to a living and feeling being, which does not consent to this harm - as long as you have the power to prevent it.

The zygote does not have a brain with a pleasure / pain center, so it cannot feel pain. When it develops a brain with a pleasure / pain center, it is wrong to abort it. So there is nothing wrong with a morning-after pill, or any of the abortifacient drugs.

Since you accepted the definition of evil as I presented, you cannot take exception to this corollary. If you wish to backpedal, then you must present a definition of evil.

 

[goout]

Ah, so you agreed to my definition? You forgot to mention it. If that is the case then I can answer. Let’s recap the definition, which you accepted:

Volitionally causing or allowing gratuitous harm to a living and feeling being, which does not consent to this harm - as long as you have the power to prevent it.

The zygote does not have a brain with a pleasure / pain center, so it cannot feel pain. When it develops a brain with a pleasure / pain center, it is wrong to abort it. So there is nothing wrong with a morning-after pill, or any of the abortifacient drugs.

Since you accepted the definition of evil as I presented, you cannot take exception to this corollary. If you wish to backpedal, then you must present a definition of evil.

He’s trying to work with your level of moral understanding.
What you just did is illustrate the deep holes in your moral understanding. (again)

Morality is the evaluation of human acts, always in service to the good. In other words, not simply for prohibition’s sake.
When asking questions about morality, if you do not first have an understanding of the objective good end, you don’t have a coherent discussion.

“Is it good to feed people or should we let them starve?”
If you don’t understand that it is objectively good for human beings to be alive, all you have is opinions about the matter. Whoever is most powerful or persuasive determines the answer.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

When asking questions about morality, if you do not first have an understanding of the objective good end, you don’t have a coherent discussion.

I did not ask about morality, only the definition of evil. Since he accepted the definition - or maybe just pretended it - the answer I gave stands. The only way to challenge it would be a constructive criticism of the definition and offering an alternative. None of which is forthcoming.

If you don’t understand that it is objectively good for human beings to be alive, all you have is opinions about the matter.

I already presented a challenge, and there are no takers. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Are you willing to cling to a pain-filled, miserable, hopeless existence, to be in Room 101 - but kept alive? I would not. And I doubt anyone would. People have a big mouth when they “talk the talk”, but they are not willing to “walk the walk”.

 

[goout]

I did not ask about morality, only the definition of evil.
…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ah, so you agreed to my definition? You forgot to mention it. If that is the case then I can answer. Let’s recap the definition, which you accepted:

Volitionally causing or allowing gratuitous harm to a living and feeling being, which does not consent to this harm - as long as you have the power to prevent it.

The zygote does not have a brain with a pleasure / pain center, so it cannot feel pain. When it develops a brain with a pleasure / pain center, it is wrong to abort it. So there is nothing wrong with a morning-after pill, or any of the abortifacient drugs.

Since you accepted the definition of evil as I presented, you cannot take exception to this corollary. If you wish to backpedal, then you must present a definition of evil.

This misrepresents my position, and you do so intentionally it seems.

I did not accept your definition of evil. I only asked you if, according to your definition, you would be consistent about intentionally causing harm to an unborn child. You manage to avoid this question.

I made it very clear in post # 339 that your definition was partial at best, and I asked you to consider the way Jesus defines morality in its positive context, that we should do unto others as we’d have them do unto us. Failure to do this also is evil, yet you don’t deal with that aspect of evil at all. I’m not surprised about that because atheists always seem to focus on intentional harm as the essence of evil, forgetting that the absence of love in the world is also a kind of evil, and probably the most vicious type of evil since it is psychological and so devastating in its consequences.

So I’ll ask again; is it intentionally harmful and gratuitous (your definition of evil) to take the life of an innocent unborn child? If not, why not?

Following the admonition of Jesus, if your mother had chosen to abort you when you were in her womb, would she have taken something from you that was yours and yours alone to keep or to give up?