Moral Dilema with Neighbor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthew1224
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Still the right thing to do is to tell them.
Why?

People have explained why not to tell. There seems to be little rationale for telling, other than some sense of them having a “right to know”. But why? What good is there to the neighbours in knowing this?
Imagine the roles had been reversed. What would you want them to do?
I’d want them to keep it to themselves.

No harm to the cat. No harm to me. But if they tell me, I will probably think worse of them.
 
Why?

People have explained why not to tell. There seems to be little rationale for telling, other than some sense of them having a “right to know”. But why? What good is there to the neighbours in knowing this?

I’d want them to keep it to themselves.

No harm to the cat. No harm to me. But if they tell me, I will probably think worse of them.
It is the right thing to do. Yes there are risks, but none of them are certain. The only thing absolutely certain is that telling them would be the right thing to do.
 
It is the right thing to do. Yes there are risks, but none of them are certain. The only thing absolutely certain is that telling them would be the right thing to do.
Sorry, but that is not at all an answer.

Why is it the right thing to do?
 
you are deceiving them

Aren’t we as Catholic supposed to determine the morality of an act regardless of circumstances, intentions, etc.?
 
you are deceiving them
Not telling the truth is different from lying. But the fact that the OP removed cat food to make it seem that they fed the cat does make it an act of deception; a lie.

But otherwise, forgetting to feed the cat was an honest mistake and telling the truth will not acheive anything good. It is not IMO in the neighbours’ interests to know the truth. And as Catholics, we respect the truth, but do not believe that there is always an obligation to reveal it, and in some cases there is an obligation not to do so. As the catechism says: “The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional.”

The key question is whether the truth should be revealed. In this case we should ask what good is to be gained.

I understand that some people believe the truth should be revealed here - I’m just asking for a better explanation than there being a “right to know”.
 
Not telling the truth is different from lying. But the fact that the OP removed cat food to make it seem that they fed the cat does make it an act of deception; a lie.

But otherwise, forgetting to feed the cat was an honest mistake and telling the truth will not acheive anything good. It is not IMO in the neighbours’ interests to know the truth. And as Catholics, we respect the truth, but do not believe that there is always an obligation to reveal it, and in some cases there is an obligation not to do so. As the catechism says: “The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional.”

The key question is whether the truth should be revealed. In this case we should ask what good is to be gained.

I understand that some people believe the truth should be revealed here - I’m just asking for a better explanation than there being a “right to know”.
Not telling Is the sin of omission.
newadvent.org/cathen/11251b.htm
 
Don’t ever volunteer to feed or care for ANYONE’S pets. Just a bad idea all around.

They could have left food for the cat or boarded it.
This is the best answer. The owners could have easily left enough food and water for 3 days. That is how we handle our cat. Anything longer than that, we board her. I think it is risky to ask and risky to accept for a number of reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top