Moral Acceptability

[Suat]

So that you know where I am coming from, I am an atheist. However, I have an interest in religion and religious beliefs. While reading one of these threads, I came across something that has always perplexed me and I am seeking help in understanding it.

The thread that sparked my most recent interest is this one.

To summarize it in terms of my question:
One of the posters is currently in training for a job that will require her, as part of her work duties, to present two options to patients. One option is in line with what the Catholic Church preaches, the other option is considered morally unacceptable by the Church. The pros and cons of both positions, from a physical standpoint, are about equal.

A few of the posters have suggested that the original poster should present both options, but she should focus on the pros of the position that the Catholic Church agrees with and the cons of the other position. This would be done in an attempt to convince the patient that the option the Catholic Church agrees with is a better option from more than just a morality standpoint.

As an outside observer, I would consider this a very blatant misrepresentation of the facts of both options and tantamount to lying to the patient in order to further your own religious views. From my understanding of Catholicism, that would qualify as a sin.

Is this action considered morally acceptable to the Church, and why? Would the action still be morally acceptable if the reverse happened, i.e. the position that Catholic Church did not agree with was presented in a positive light?

 

[wjp984]

Interesting way to look at it coming from an outsider. However, the simple answer to your question is no it is not a sin and yes it is morally acceptable. For example, I want to be a lawyer and if the above you mentioned is a sin then I suppose I would therefore be damning myself to Hell by becoming a lawyer one day since that is exactly what they do on a constant basis. It is alright to defend your postion and tell the truth in a way that supports your opinion. Why would I want to help out the oppposing attorney and lose the case? I am arguing for the facts that support my possition. Given that I will be attending a Catholic law school, you can be sure that the Catholic Church does support this career. In fact, St. Thomas More was a laywer. There is a great movie, A Man for All Seasons about him where he successfully uses the law to withhold information and his true opinion to not incriminate himself. That certainly was not sinful but one could say he was not being entirely truthful in witholding his true opinion that he did not support the Church of England and the divorce. Of course they have to illegally make something up about him and committ perjury in order to kill him but they could not legally defeat him in court.

 

[wjp984]

The answer to your second question might be a little hard for you, an atheist to understand. The answer would be that the reverse situation would not be morally acceptable. I know this seems hypocritcal and unfair but think about it in secular terms. You would agree that it would be a good thing to argue that murder is wrong. Every person has the right to live and and taking their life from them would be wrong. However, and I know this sounds corny but I am hoping you make sense of the answer through this. Do you think it would be morally right to convince a person that murder is an acceptable thing to do or even encourage it as a means of population control? I mean, the world is overpopoulated and there are plenty of people who perhaps don’t deserve to live and are useless waste of space. Perhaps these people have no families and are on welfare and just waste resources and are useless excuses for existence. The world is better off without them. So just for fun let’s see if we can go take a few of them out with a rifle for target practice and make a game out of it. We might even help the world by doing it. I then convince someone to go out and murder the next homeless person he or she sees froom a rooftop with a sniper for fun. Please realize that I gave a porpostorous example that I hope would not win anyone over but I am trying to make you get the point. Would you then agree that it is morally wrong for me to make that argument? I might even be morally culpable for the murder of the homeless person. Then you might also agree that it would be morally acceptable for me to not argue why we should go out an murder as a method of population control and instead use other means. In fact, I would hope you agree that I could leave that crazy argument I wrote out entirely

Therefore, it would be morally unacceptable for us to argue against our Catholic beliefs in the reverse situation and also according to our beliefs, it would be morally unacceptable for anyone else to do it as well if their actions go on to cause others to sin whether they believe it or not.

 

[FightingFat]

As an outside observer, I would consider this a very blatant misrepresentation of the facts of both options and tantamount to lying to the patient in order to further your own religious views. From my understanding of Catholicism, that would qualify as a sin.

Is this action considered morally acceptable to the Church, and why? Would the action still be morally acceptable if the reverse happened, i.e. the position that Catholic Church did not agree with was presented in a positive light?

I wonder if you had accepted the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception, that would mean that you had carefully considered the evidence and decided that the Church’s stance was the correct one. If you believe that, and present it as such, aren’t you simply giving your own professional opinion on the subject?

 

[Em_in_FL]

So that you know where I am coming from, I am an atheist. However, I have an interest in religion and religious beliefs. While reading one of these threads, I came across something that has always perplexed me and I am seeking help in understanding it.

The thread that sparked my most recent interest is this one.

To summarize it in terms of my question:
One of the posters is currently in training for a job that will require her, as part of her work duties, to present two options to patients. One option is in line with what the Catholic Church preaches, the other option is considered morally unacceptable by the Church. The pros and cons of both positions, from a physical standpoint, are about equal.

A few of the posters have suggested that the original poster should present both options, but she should focus on the pros of the position that the Catholic Church agrees with and the cons of the other position. This would be done in an attempt to convince the patient that the option the Catholic Church agrees with is a better option from more than just a morality standpoint.

As an outside observer, I would consider this a very blatant misrepresentation of the facts of both options and tantamount to lying to the patient in order to further your own religious views. From my understanding of Catholicism, that would qualify as a sin.

Is this action considered morally acceptable to the Church, and why? Would the action still be morally acceptable if the reverse happened, i.e. the position that Catholic Church did not agree with was presented in a positive light?

How is offering 2 options a “misreepresentation of the facts” and “tantamount to lying” if (as you say) the “pros and cons of both positions, from a physical standpoint, are about equal.”

You just said they are two “equal” options…
How is offering both a “misrepresentation” or “lying”?

 

[Suat]

Thank you all for the replies. I think I understand better why you have taken the positions that you have.

Why would I want to help out the oppposing attorney and lose the case? I am arguing for the facts that support my possition.

I think it can be assumed that an attorney will present the facts in a manner that will support his/her views. The difference here is that another attorney will be presenting the other side of the case, so hopefully all the facts are presented and the correct conclusion can be reached.

Given that I will be attending a Catholic law school, you can be sure that the Catholic Church does support this career.

That is good to know.

The answer to your second question might be a little hard for you, an atheist to understand.

I am pretty smart, try me

The answer would be that the reverse situation would not be morally acceptable. I know this seems hypocritcal and unfair but think about it in secular terms.

Yes, I would agree, which is why I asked for an explanation.

Would you then agree that it is morally wrong for me to make that argument? I might even be morally culpable for the murder of the homeless person.

Yes.

Then you might also agree that it would be morally acceptable for me to not argue why we should go out an murder as a method of population control and instead use other means.

Perhaps the analogy is a bit far for me. Going though a quick mental list of the pros and cons of murdering someone versus not murdering them, I can quickly see that there are more benefits to leaving a person alive in most cases. I would hope most sane people arrive at the same conclusion. In that case, the analogy fails because the two options were not equal or more slanted to the religiously immoral position to being with.

Therefore, it would be morally unacceptable for us to argue against our Catholic beliefs in the reverse situation and also according to our beliefs, it would be morally unacceptable for anyone else to do it as well if their actions go on to cause others to sin whether they believe it or not.

I do not think that you should argue against your beliefs. I was wondering if it was possible to present both sides fairly even though your religion teaches that one is morally superior to another. By fairly I do not mean that you must make both options seem as though they are the same, but that you should give an accurate representation of the all of the pros and cons of both arguments.

I wonder if you had accepted the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception, that would mean that you had carefully considered the evidence and decided that the Church’s stance was the correct one. If you believe that, and present it as such, aren’t you simply giving your own professional opinion on the subject?

That is an interesting question. I think that would depend on what you based your decision upon. If it was primarily based upon the Church’s moral stance, then the opinion would not be a professional one, but a personal, morality based choice. If the same conclusion was reached prior to factoring in the Church’s stance on morality, then it would be a professional conclusion. Either way, I would still argue for a fair representation of all the facts first, then any personal preference based upon professional or moral beliefs can be presented.

How is offering 2 options a “misreepresentation of the facts” and “tantamount to lying” if (as you say) the “pros and cons of both positions, from a physical standpoint, are about equal.”

You just said they are two “equal” options…
How is offering both a “misrepresentation” or “lying”?

My apologies for being unclear.

Suppose there two or more choices that are equal prior to the weighing of a given religious morality/belief. Or in the case of an issue such as Evolution/Creation, the non-religion based belief is superior to that of the given religion’s views (I know the Catholic Church is not against evolution, so this is a general religion question).

Is moral to give a person of an unknown religion the impression that decision you have made based upon your religious beliefs is the more valid decision if that means that you must misrepresent the facts of both issues? In the specific case I pointed out, more attention would be given to the cons of the option that was against Church belief, while the focus would be on the pros of the Church sanctioned option. In doing this, you would falsely give an unbiased observed the impression that the only logical choice for people regardless of religion or belief falls in line with what the Church believes.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I do not think that you should argue against your beliefs. I was wondering if it was possible to present both sides fairly even though your religion teaches that one is morally superior to another. By fairly I do not mean that you must make both options seem as though they are the same, but that you should give an accurate representation of the all of the pros and cons of both arguments.

Sure, it’s definitely possibly to FAIRLY offer both options giving an accurate representation of all the pros and cons of both arguments…
For example… using the thread you were referencing…
“Option A… artificial birth control has an effectiveness of XX%, and has the following side effects (ie potential increase risk for breast cancer, etc). Option B… NFP has an effectiveness of XX%, takes some effort and to learn, but has ZERO side effects.”

Logical responses are easy to give… even with respect to the faith.

My apologies for being unclear.

Suppose there two or more choices that are equal prior to the weighing of a given religious morality/belief. Or in the case of an issue such as Evolution/Creation, the non-religion based belief is superior to that of the given religion’s views (I know the Catholic Church is not against evolution, so this is a general religion question).

Is moral to give a person of an unknown religion the impression that decision you have made based upon your religious beliefs is the more valid decision if that means that you must misrepresent the facts of both issues? In the specific case I pointed out, more attention would be given to the cons of the option that was against Church belief, while the focus would be on the pros of the Church sanctioned option. In doing this, you would falsely give an unbiased observed the impression that the only logical choice for people regardless of religion or belief falls in line with what the Church believes.

Is it morally acceptable to evangalize? Of course. But like I said above… it’s fairly easy to give logical, scientific (non-faith related) arguments for options that would agree with what the Church teaches…

 

[FightingFat]

That is an interesting question. I think that would depend on what you based your decision upon. If it was primarily based upon the Church’s moral stance, then the opinion would not be a professional one, but a personal, morality based choice. If the same conclusion was reached prior to factoring in the Church’s stance on morality, then it would be a professional conclusion. Either way, I would still argue for a fair representation of all the facts first, then any personal preference based upon professional or moral beliefs can be presented.

I think we are pretty much in agreement.

For me, my decisions as a Catholic involve my study and acceptance of doctrine, I mean I agree with Catholic positions- because I agree with them; that is because I think that they are right, not because they are Catholic. This is the principle of Catholic Faith~ Faith based on reason. (For further details on this idea please read the Pope’s controversial Regensburg address, or Pope John Paul II’s Fides et Ratio). So being a Catholic entails engaging with difficult moral and ethical questions and informing myself about them.

I also would say that the idea of true impartiality is a myth. Our passion about issues seeps into whatever we write or produce, even though we may try to keep it “fair and balanced” – to borrow a phrase.

 

[wjp984]

Thank you all for the replies. I think I understand better why you have taken the positions that you have.

Perhaps the analogy is a bit far for me. Going though a quick mental list of the pros and cons of murdering someone versus not murdering them, I can quickly see that there are more benefits to leaving a person alive in most cases. I would hope most sane people arrive at the same conclusion. In that case, the analogy fails because the two options were not equal or more slanted to the religiously immoral position to being with.

Well, I could come up with more analogies but I tried to think of one that universally any sane person like you said would understand. However, the point is that if the two options are equal, it would be morally acceptable to argue for the one that supports your faith and it would not be morally acceptable to argue in favor of something immoral. We all know that murder is wrong so I used that example. In the case of contraception, some people might believe that it is a mortal sin and therefore dangerous to one’s eternal soul. The point is not whether you personally believe it. However, if you do believe it and then you cause someone else to potentially lose their salvation since you taught them how to sin, then their sin might be on you as well and your salvation might be at risk as well just like if you convinced someone to murder than you would also be responsible. This can apply to any religion. What if a Muslum or orthodox Jew was forced to give a speech on the various types of meats and their pros and cons. Should they be forced to provide the benefits of eating pork. Or would it be alright if they explained how they emphazised the negatives of a meat such as pork being that it can cause numerous illnesses and problems if undercooked and how it might be unhealthy. I would see nothing wrong with that.