Only if you consider job performance a moral issue. I don’t. Failing to protect is a job failure not a moral failure.Why doesn’t it seem like a moral judgment?
But self-defense is clearly not necessarily morally required. It *is *morally required for a bodyguard to fulfill his duty to protect the president.
These statements are not consistent with Church teaching.
CCC said:
LOL! - obviously not. That’s like saying: “If I shoot the assassin, I will save the president’s life… does that make shooting your mother justifiable?” LOL!
Neither is highlighting a phrase to take it out of context
This statement is in reference to civil defense - defense of the citizenry not leaders or individuals. Basically it states that those in charge must defend those they are in charge of. The statement has more to do with Presidential obligation than body guard. All references to those to be guarded are in the plural not singular. “Lives of others” rather than “the life of another.” So the verbiage is consistent with civil defense.
Okay, but you are wrong to consider that job performance is not a moral issue. Intentional and unjustified negligence in the performance of a contract is obviously a form of lying and is immoral.
So Jesus was morally obligated to protect himself from his executioners? I think not.
True, it is a form of lying if done willfully. You are making the assumption that it conscious decision - you don’t know if you can pull the trigger until you do. The under riding morality of “thou shall not kill” may be taking precedence rendering the individual unfit for the position that he has taken.
I’m not assuming - I’m describing a scenario.
I wish you two could understand how that works. Your alternate scenario is nothing but another red herring.Wow! Yeah, that’s exactly what I said: Jesus was not morally obligated to protect himself from his executioners; therefore Jesus committed suicide.
there is no “not” in the statement and this is a false dichotomy (an obvious and absurd one).
The president’s bodyguard is in charge of the president’s safety.
Because you arbitrarily say so??
My answer to you:
I’m not talking about “raping” in general! I’m talking about me raping your wife with the justification I just gave you!My word is *definitive *(literally) - this is a scenario, mine.
That is a pure nonsense answer. What question is it even supposed to answer?
wife or mother? Read the nonsense scenario that you wrote a little more carefully please:
I concur if you willfully under perform it is a form of lying. Not all under performance is willful.I’m not assuming - I’m describing a scenario.
Wow! Yeah, that’s exactly what I said: Jesus was not morally obligated to protect himself from his executioners; therefore Jesus committed suicide.
It’s implied not explicit.
I am familiar with the concept. Thank you for your concern and effort to alleviate my ignorance that you may have thought you perceived.
a little more carefully please!]That is a pure nonsense answer. What question is it even supposed to answer?
wife or mother? Read the nonsense scenario that you wrote a little more carefully please:
“Here’s my scenario:
Me raping your wife will ensure the birth of a guy who discovers the cure for cancer… does that make raping your mother justifiable?”
[Actually, read *everything
This is a very important issue, and it is disappointing to see that people do not wish to tackle it head-on. Hardly a surprise, of course. I have presented many thought-experiments before, and the so-called answers were mostly evasions, trying to establish why the thought experiment should not have been presented in the first place.
I didn’t evade the question… I put the scenario on “trial” to see wether it was plausible or merely a “bubble world”, a scenario completely unrelated to the real world. The fact of the matter is that morality isn’t about making rash decisions it is precisely about making rational decisions based in everything we have knowledge of, which is why I mentioned “knowledge” as one of the 3 pillars for morality.
That is called evasion. You can choose to answer the problem, or completely disregard the problem, but you cannot modify the problem. Once you have answered the problem, of course, you can present a separate thought experiment, to investigate further.
You have all the time in the world sitting at your computer and conetmplate the scenario.
Actually I don’t have all the time in the world… and it’s got nothing to do with evasion, it’s got to do with facts. I usually don’t use “thought experiments” for morality exercises because morality only applies to facts. Wether or not his scenario was ever real it doesn’t tell us anything other than:
