Morality? What morality?

[Spock]

You think that racist people who don’t act on their “thoughts” are no longer racists?
I fail to see why… It is a sin in that it is a sin to yourself and your knowledge of the world around you, just like the lust example.

Sure they are racists. It is not a problem to have racist thoughts. Only acting on those thoughts is a problem. And even some actions are not problematic. They can freely expose their racist thoughts, conduct peaceful demonstrations, according to the Constitution. What is not acceptable is to put the racist thoughts into actions, for example to conduct lynchings.

 

[dskysmine]

Sure they are racists. It is not a problem to have racist thoughts. Only acting on those thoughts is a problem. And even some actions are not problematic. They can freely expose their racist thoughts, conduct peaceful demonstrations, according to the Constitution. What is not acceptable is to put the racist thoughts into actions, for example to conduct lynchings.

That is only if you consider immorality “hurting other people”. There are much more immoralities out there… Your definition of morality is subjective, that’s why you take morality to be subjective. If you follow cold hard facts, morality can never be subjective. That’s like saying that “pseudo-science” should be allowed to be teached… people can in fact lie and be wrong… but that doesn’t make it “right”, i.e. moral.

 

[Betterave]

Yes, of course. Thoughts do have physical effects on our own bodies. Thoughts cannot have effects on someone else’s bodies, unless the thought is transformed into actions. In and by themselves (without actions) thoughts are “inert”. If I imagine (or think) to give some some donation to a homeless (but do not carry it out), there will be no change in the life of that homeless. So the thoughts themselves are not subject to “moral judgment”.

I am aware that Jesus said: “Whoever looked at a woman with lust, already committed adultery with her in his heart”. Since adultery is “sin”, this would make the thought itself a “sinful” act. But I do not accept this.

I do not agree with your restriction of the physical effects of thoughts to the body of the thinking subject. May I ask: What do you think ‘a thought’ is?

‘A thought’ is not the same as ‘thought,’ right? But wouldn’t you agree that the two are very closely related? (How??)

I will also claim that it is not possible for ‘thought’ *not *to be transformed into ‘action’ (properly speaking, thinking is a mode of action, and constitutively related to physical action - think behaviourism without the reductionism) - ‘thought’ which never sees the light of day, so to speak, is undeserving of the name, and at the very least should be excluded from consideration here as an irrelevant marginal case.

 

[jonfawkes]

I do not agree with your restriction of the physical effects of thoughts to the body of the thinking subject. May I ask: What do you think ‘a thought’ is?

‘A thought’ is not the same as ‘thought,’ right? But wouldn’t you agree that the two are very closely related? (How??)

I will also claim that it is not possible for ‘thought’ *not *to be transformed into ‘action’ (properly speaking, thinking is a mode of action, and constitutively related to physical action - think behaviourism without the reductionism) - ‘thought’ which never sees the light of day, so to speak, is undeserving of the name, and at the very least should be excluded from consideration here as an irrelevant marginal case.

Are you saying you lack impulse control?

 

[Betterave]

Sure they are racists. It is not a problem to have racist thoughts. Only acting on those thoughts is a problem. And even some actions are not problematic. They can freely expose their racist thoughts, conduct peaceful demonstrations, according to the Constitution. What is not acceptable is to put the racist thoughts into actions, for example to conduct lynchings.

You claim that KKK idiots parading down the street in ghost costumes or having white power rallies are not doing anything morally problematic? (Honestly I have a hard time believing that. You’re getting dangerously close to handing us a reductio ad absurdum of your position.)

So when exactly *do *they cross the line??

 

[Betterave]

Are you saying you lack impulse control?

No, nothing even remotely related to that. Please try to read more carefully (provided you *have * any impulse control when it comes to this kind of thing).

 

[jonfawkes]

No, nothing even remotely related to that. Please try to read more carefully (provided you *have * any impulse control when it comes to this kind of thing).

You were commenting on Spock’s notion that a thought that is not translated to an external action is not “sinful” vs Jesus’ proclamation

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:27-28[/BIBLEDRB]

You are talking about an internal process “thinking”. If you are discounting every thought that isn’t transfered into an external action - you are talking about someone that lacks impulse control. If they have a thought they do it. If you are just stating that we are physical beings and everything that happens is “an action” whats the point in terms of morality. If I get the impulse to smack you down, why not do it? I’ve already thought it. I’ve already had the “thought action.” - So how do we navigate the morality of thought? Should I apologize to the woman I see on the street because I found her attractive?

 

[dskysmine]

Are you saying you lack impulse control?

I think what he means is that “thoughts” are causes of behaviours. If a person is racist it is unlikely that person will relate with people of a different “race”, for example, even if that person does not kill or physically hurt people of different “races”.

 

[Betterave]

You are talking about an internal process “thinking”. If you are discounting every thought that isn’t transfered into an external action - you are talking about someone that lacks impulse control. If they have a thought they do it. If you are just stating that we are physical beings and everything that happens is “an action” whats the point in terms of morality. If I get the impulse to smack you down, why not do it? I’ve already thought it. I’ve already had the “thought action.” - So how do we navigate the morality of thought? Should I apologize to the woman I see on the street because I found her attractive?

You’re still not even close. Please read what I wrote again, maybe some of the preceding posts too so you can understand the context better. If you really want to understand my argument/claims, then please refer to what I actually wrote when commenting or asking questions.

 

[4Horsemen]

Catholic doctrine teaches that a person can sin by thought, word or deed. In order for an action, any action to take place, it must be preceeded by a thought, however brief it is. The thought is translated into an act if emotion makes it so.

Even such mundane actions as turning on a t.v. require a thought to do so and the desire to see a program or see what’s on. Regarding moral issues, thought preceeds the act as well. And as Spock mentioned Jesus admonished lustful thinking as if the action of adultery were already performed. A person can be caught up in pornography, sometimes daily thinking about sinful/evil acts. Although he may not go out and commit rape or child molestation, the person may find other ways to gratify his sexual impulses alone. However, even if he just looked at the disgusting portrayals of lust, he is hurting himself spiritually by disregarding the life of virtue to the death of his soul. Also, he develops a perverted view of women (and men) in their role in the family and society.

 

[dskysmine]

You were commenting on Spock’s notion that a thought that is not translated to an external action is not “sinful” vs Jesus’ proclamation

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:27-28[/BIBLEDRB]

You are talking about an internal process “thinking”. If you are discounting every thought that isn’t transfered into an external action - you are talking about someone that lacks impulse control. If they have a thought they do it. If you are just stating that we are physical beings and everything that happens is “an action” whats the point in terms of morality. If I get the impulse to smack you down, why not do it? I’ve already thought it. I’ve already had the “thought action.” - So how do we navigate the morality of thought? Should I apologize to the woman I see on the street because I found her attractive?

You could apologize, although it wouldn’t mean much to her if she wasn’t catholic, it would mean a lot to you.
A priest I knew once told me that he was watching the parents picking up their children after catechesis before mass and noticed one man guiding his son to the car and he was thinking to himself “poor child doesn’t even have a father that will take him to mass”, and when he was entering the church he saw that man inside the church with the son by his side. After the “Our Father” he went to give a great hug to that man and ask him to forgive him for thinking poorly of him.
We are united in Christ. What we think of each other is what we think of God. Why not apologize? Does it sound so crazy? Why do you think that the Church teaches us to divert our mind when those lustful thoughts appear?
Your disrespect to that woman is in yourself, you are hurting yourself and your relationship to God.

Best wishes,
Daniel

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

All that hinges on the definition of murder. You say that all the circumstances must be taken into account to decide if a murder actually took place or not. Which is fine, but without a proper definition it just hangs in the air. So please, define “murder” for me, so we can go on.

Actually, let us start from a more basic principle of morality, because so much, including murder and sexual immorality, depends on it. And what is this basic principle? The sacredness of human life.

CCC 2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a* special relationship* with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end…”

Atheists misunderstand Christians when the latter say there can be no morality when there is no God. The former think that means when there is no God no one can then punish evildoers. No, it just means that the source of all morality is the special relationship between God and man. Man was made for God’s love; man’s reason for existing is God’s love. Man’s life is sacred, i.e. dedicated for God, to God, by God. Without God, man’s life has no meaning, because then man has no reason for living.

Therefore, any attempt to subvert this relationship between God and man is evil, including and especially a direct, deliberate attempt to end a man’s life. This is murder. “The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. (CCC 2268)”

There is, however, another principle that we have to add: the principle of double effect.

The Church teaches that one may legitimately choose to carry out an act that is morally good, but which has one or more unintended side effects that are morally evil. The principle of double effect has several guideline that must be met for an act to be morally acceptable:

• The intended act must be good in itself. The intended act may not be morally evil.
• The good effect of the act must be that which is directly intended by the one who carries out the act. The bad effect that results from the act may be foreseen by the agent but must be unintended.
• The good effect must not be brought about by using morally evil means.
• The good effect must be of equal or greater proportion to any evil effect which would result.
• Acts that have morally negative effects are permissible only when truly necessary, i.e., when there are no other means by which the good may be obtained.

Source

To show the difficulties, let me present a few problems.

1. State sanctioned executions are usually not considered “murder”.
2. Killing in a war is usually not considered to be a “murder”. (Also consider “colleteral damage”.)
3. Killing someone in self-defense is usually not considered to be a “murder”.

Also what does “self-defense” mean? Does it only apply to oneself? Or does it apply to protect one’s children? Or the neighbor’s children? Or the neigbor’s life ? Or protect a total stranger’s life?

You should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church: it is all there, all in the same section.

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

continued

 

[nuntym]

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

1. And do not forget suicide, as well.

Suicide

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

continued

 

[nuntym]

1. Consider a patient in presistent vegetative state. To maintain “life” costs a ton of money, and that money could be spent on saving other people’s lives (who will die, if you keep on maintaining the person in coma).

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged

1. What about life-boat situations? Two people, limited supply of provisions, enough for one, but insufficient for two.

As long as they do not deliberately kill each other or themselves or other people they are free to do what they need to do. Including eating the other’s corpse if one dies, if need be.

On this topic we cannot agree. The behavior of adults is their own business.

Of course you don’t. You must agree first that human life is sacred: set apart for God’s love. For if you agree on this, then ALL parts of man’s life, including and ESPECIALLY the wellspring of man’s life, his procreative powers, must remain sacred.

But I will quote an old joke to show the problem.

…

All I can say, mind your own business, and stop judging other people’s behavior, as long as that behavior does not interfere with yours. And, no, “knowing about” what they might or might not do, in none of your concern.

Did I say I have to be nosy about other people’s behavior? I can only judge people on what they show others. God, on the other hand, sees everything.

God bless.

 

[Spock]

You claim that KKK idiots parading down the street in ghost costumes or having white power rallies are not doing anything morally problematic? (Honestly I have a hard time believing that. You’re getting dangerously close to handing us a reductio ad absurdum of your position.)

We are in the danger of drifting away, but I guess, it is inevitable. Of course I hate them and what they stand for. But what is the solution? Exposing their views as sick and unacceptable - in the open markeplace of ideas. Expose them, ridicule them, criticize them. It is not a solution to make laws against “hate-speech”. That “cure” would be worse than the “disease”. What about “pornography”? It cannot be “defined”. One man’s digusting “porn” is another’s mildly interesting sexual material. Whose undefinable standard should prevail?

There are all sorts of ideas we find odious. Let’s just take some anti-abortion protesters, who stand on street corners, and expose pictures of aborted fetuses. I disagree with them, and yet I support their rights to do what they do. They must be allowed to think what they think, and within limits, they must be allowed to act as they act. The other “solution” would be to bring some laws to restrict the freedom of thought (how would they be enforced without telescreens?) or restrict the freedom of speech, which could be enforced, and the resulting society would be something that is much worse than the possible damage that those “undesired” thoughts could bring. There are many grey areas. Not everything is nice, black and white.

So when exactly *do *they cross the line??

When they put their ideas into practice. When they do not only talk about the “inferiority” of certain people (they hate not just blacks, but also Jews, atheists and Catholics, too), but attempt to put their ideas into individual and group actions. That is the line which cannot be allowed to cross.

 

[Betterave]

Of course you don’t. You must agree first that human life is sacred: set apart for God’s love.

Aren’t you jumping to conclusions here, in asserting a need for prior agreement on this point? How do you defend that claim?

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Aren’t you jumping to conclusions here, in asserting a need for prior agreement on this point? How do you defend that claim?

Unfortunately, any disagreement on the Church’s doctrines on human sexuality stems from this. If you do accept that man’s life is sacred, i.e. man was made for God, to God, by God, then that means that the beginning, the well spring of life, man’s procreative powers, must be sacred too, and thus any abuse on man’s part of his procreative powers is morally evil.

God bless.

 

[Contarini]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

No. Your premise is completely false. In fact, I’m deeply disturbed by the fact that you casually assume that people would sanction terrorism on behalf of a cause in which they believe.

Edwin

 

[Spock]

Actually, let us start from a more basic principle of morality, because so much, including murder and sexual immorality, depends on it. And what is this basic principle? The sacredness of human life.

I really appreciate all the time and effort you spent in formulating your thoughts. I will only answer some of it explicitly, not out of disrespect, rather not to burden you with pages of text.

Immediately your opening line is problematic. Of course I agree that human life is - generally - worthy of respect. I don’t know about “sacred”, that is a religious term. But respecting human life is a good starting point.

Atheists misunderstand Christians when the latter say there can be no morality when there is no God. The former think that means when there is no God no one can then punish evildoers. No, it just means that the source of all morality is the special relationship between God and man.

Again, I can respect others without resorting to God. Is that not enough? My aim is to have a common definition which is acceptable to both theists and atheists. Otherwise we shall be talking past each other. If you insist that “morality” describes the relationship between man and God, then we are stuck, we cannot take even one more step ahead.

Therefore, any attempt to subvert this relationship between God and man is evil, including and especially a direct, deliberate attempt to end a man’s life. This is murder.

Well, the legal definition of “murder” is the “illegal taking the life of someone else”. Is that sufficient, or should we try to make a “moral definition” for the sake of this discussion? If so, I would offer this definiton: “The intentional taking of someone else’s life without their consent, and without acceptable justification”. I am aware that this is somewhat vague. We could talk about the specifics if you want to. But, of course, first we should agree what could be a “moral” definition. Which brings us back to square one.

There is, however, another principle that we have to add: the principle of double effect.

I am aware of this principle. I find it a nice attempt to perform a cop-out. After all how can anyone else know what my state of mind (intention) was when I committed an act?

 

[Spock]

I do not agree with your restriction of the physical effects of thoughts to the body of the thinking subject. May I ask: What do you think ‘a thought’ is?

The electro-chemical activity of the brain. Some of it occurs in the “little grey-cells” area, the conscious and most of it occurs in the sub-conscious.

‘A thought’ is not the same as ‘thought,’ right? But wouldn’t you agree that the two are very closely related? (How??)

Indeed I agree. The relationship is exactly like it is between “a-book” and “book”.

I will also claim that it is not possible for ‘thought’ *not *to be transformed into ‘action’ (properly speaking, thinking is a mode of action, and constitutively related to physical action - think behaviourism without the reductionism) - ‘thought’ which never sees the light of day, so to speak, is undeserving of the name, and at the very least should be excluded from consideration here as an irrelevant marginal case.

The “thoughts” within the sub-conscious will stay “hidden” from us - usually. Our brain controls our “breathing” (for example), but those thoughts (firings of the neurons) usually stay beneath our perception. I am not sure about the relevance of this. I would like to concentrate on the problem of “desires, thoughts, which are not put into actions”. Specifically, looking at someone else, who is not our spouse, finding that person sexually arousing (which is not a conscious thought, it is all chemistry), imagining having an affair with that person (daydreaming, perhaps for a second), without any intent whatsoever of putting that little daydream into practice. Does such a passing thought belong to the “immoral” realm?