C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
I’ve heard many people, almost always non-Catholics, insist that no act is immoral as long as it is agreed to by consenting adults.
Agree? Disagree? Why?
Agree? Disagree? Why?
- Status
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
How many adults do you know who have a lick of sense?
J
Jacob18
Guest
Sounds like trying to justify sinning to me.
1
1ke
Guest
This is called moral relativism and it is a heresy.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Relativism. Humanistic relativism. There is no right and wrong, no good and evil, if I see evil, the evil is within ME, the evil is NEVER real.
Libertarians frequently hold that POV.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
What would be an example of an act that would refute this kind of logic?
T
Turtle_Turtle
Guest
If you had a child and a group of Non-Catholics got together and consented to kill that child. Would it be wrong? Why or why not?
R
Rainaldo
Guest
Disagree.
Refutation: If that were true, then *conspiracy to commit *a crime would not be immoral either.
B
Bookcat
Guest
For example certain things are intrinsic evils and nothing can make them good. No matter how much the consenting adults agree.
The “consenting adults” are committing sin by the very consent…(a key component to sin).
The “consenting adults” are committing sin by the very consent…(a key component to sin).
M
MidnightSun12
Guest
Does our society allow a person to commit suicide even if they really want to kill themselves? Clearly not, because no person in their right mind would want to do such a thing. Our society provides help for these kind of people so that they can start to think rationally again.
It’s the same for any intrinsic evil that liberals argue is a matter of personal freedom (such as homosexual unions). These acts are always 100% damaging to the parties involved and, therefore, anybody who is committing such an act must be doing so because they aren’t thinking in a rational manner and it’s evil for a society to be encouraging somebody to carry out such acts even if it’s what they think is best for them, at the time!
W
wcknight
Guest
The idea sounds wrong and absurd to begin with. IF I and a jewery store owner want to rip off an insurance company, we can both agree to let me rob his store and file claim a claim for the insurancfe. To say that is ok, would be ridiculous.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
The context in which consenting adults is justified, no matter how much we regard the act as intrinsically evil, might be illustrated by a prostitute agreeing to take money for sex. Why should prostitution be legal or illegal even though both the prostitute and her customer are consenting parties?
By the way, if the Supreme Court eventually rules that same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere, would it not follow that the Supreme Court would have to rule that prostitution should be legal everywhere?
By the way, if the Supreme Court eventually rules that same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere, would it not follow that the Supreme Court would have to rule that prostitution should be legal everywhere?
T
thistle
Guest
Making an act legal does not make it moral. Abortion is legal most places but it remains gravely immoral.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
You and me get together and we have this sweet gun. I have always wanted to know what it felt like to get shot, so I have you shoot me in the leg. We agreed right.? I consented right?
Of course you can see how dumb this is. In fact in common law two people cannot consent to activity such as this (Like getting beat up).There is actually a real case about this. newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/16/new-york-man-asks-to-be-shot-friend-complies/
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Jilly
**In fact in common law two people cannot consent to activity such as this (Like getting beat up). **
You mean, as in a boxing match?
**In fact in common law two people cannot consent to activity such as this (Like getting beat up). **
You mean, as in a boxing match?
J
jilly4ski
Guest
No, that is a sport. Think of it this way. NFL, the players are consenting to get hit during the course of the game. What they are not and cannot consent to is someone inflicting intentional harm, think the bounty program.Jilly
**In fact in common law two people cannot consent to activity such as this (Like getting beat up). **
You mean, as in a boxing match?
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
Really it’s simple. Agreeing to commit a sin is a sin.
S
Shike
Guest
The “problem” with this example is that someone who thinks that consent is absolute would argue that the child did not give his consent. And if the child was too young to give consent than the arguer would accept the consequences as licit - we are already in a world where some people think euthanasia is okay.
I don’t see the connecting dots. A little help? As it stands, I don’t think that whether a group is planning to do something or has done it “matters” in this context: what matters to the arguer is if there is an innocent third party involved who is a moral agent.
Again, euthanasia is gaining support as a “legitimate” option. So it may be soon that society (or the tyranny of the minority) foist it as a legal option on the rest of us. Isn’t it already legal in Oregon?
It would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it. But some are so blinded that they are willing to accept the ridiculous. Nevertheless, the arguer would say that this example fails to take into account the non-consenting insurance company, because, surely, the insurance company doesn’t want to get ripped off.
I would respond to the arguer by asking deeper questions like why is consent absolute. They will either end with the claim that there is no morality at all and just throw up their hands (and hopefully stop with the silly games by saying consent is absolute) or they will say something like because it keeps the peace. If the arguer says because it keeps the peace, then I would ask why is peace so important. This game goes on and on until, again, either the arguer throws up his hands or he eventually comes to some kind of answer that incorporates human nature.
When human nature is reached, there is only a short step further to ground the truth of human nature in God (especially in His love). Sure, one can stop at the human nature stage and talk all day about the prudential reasons for avoiding a sinful act with all the damage it does. But… ultimately I don’t think prudential reasons are enough, especially philosophically.
Acts are damaging because they are wrong. They are not wrong because they are damaging.
In sum, my strategy would be to help the arguer see that his preference for absolute consent rests on other assumptions, and that these higher order assumptions contradict his preference for absolute consent.
S
Shike
Guest
Well, technically the Supreme court doesn’t have to make any further rulings at all.
But to answer your question in the way you probably meant it, logically, yes. The Supreme Court could logically rule that any number of immoral acts are legal. There really isn’t much else to go on if you don’t start with human nature.
But morally, they should probably overturn some decisions in order to get their credibility back.
T
timotheos
Guest
Your definition of immorality, which is linked to your definition of morality and how you define good, will influence your answer to this question. For example, in a purely hedonistic definition of good that is centered purely around an individual’s experience of pleasure, immorality has no meaning outside of the experience of pain. For an atheist, this poses no problem. But for anyone who believes that the definition of good is linked to a reality of order outside of the objects or acts themselves, they will have a harder time explaining how some acts are exempt from scrutiny.
- Status