Morality? What morality?

[Betterave]

Ask betterave he was the one who compared the two scenarios. For me they are the same.

LOL! How about the fact that in the real world your scenario could never happen (did you miss that feature of your scenario?), and mine easily could and in fact no doubt has!

It wasn’t? It’s the same thing… even if the killer is trying to kill me (and I know about it) and the only (emphasis on only) way for me to stop him is by killing him the moral choice is to let myself be murdered. The fact that the Church says it is justifiable doesn’t mean it is “good”. In a court of law you can be declared not guilty, and it doesn’t mean you are innocent.

You seem not to understand the terms you are using: when you do something that is morally justified, by definition you are innocent.

 

[Betterave]

Because what Betterave says is objective morality? >_> I pity you.

Don’t be silly. Why do you pity me?

It’s my scenario…

Indeed. So what? You really aren’t understanding this scenario thing. Let me explain: A scenario presents a set of circumstances where a moral decision is called for. You are free to arbitrarily define the circumstances however you want. You are ***not *free to arbitrarily define what moral decision is called for in light of those circumstances.

Both of you are also in agreement that morality is subjective… you just haven’t realized it.

LOL! Clever argument.

 

[dskysmine]

LOL! How about the fact that in the real world your scenario could never happen (did you miss that feature of your scenario?), and mine easily could and in fact no doubt has!

You’d have to give me proof for such.

You seem not to understand the terms you are using: when you do something that is morally justified, by definition you are innocent.

Not at all… Justification for “immoral actions” such as the one you described are just subjective morality reminiscences.
When you step on a friend by accident you are “justified” to having hurt him even though you didn’t mean to, so you always apologize.

Don’t be silly. Why do you pity me?

I pity you because:
1- You started arguing “against” Spock because you thought morality was objective and are now ending the discussion on his side,
2- You think your subjective morality is “higher guided” than others and your attitude clearly shows it.

Indeed. So what? You really aren’t understanding this scenario thing. Let me explain: A scenario presents a set of circumstances where a moral decision is called for. You are free to arbitrarily define the circumstances however you want. You are ***not *free to arbitrarily define what moral decision is called for in light of those circumstances.

I made the same definitions that you did in your scenario.
The moral bound in your case is towards the protection of life of the president, in mine it is the protection of thousands of lives that die with cancer.
The moral decision in your is “to kill or not to kill”, in mine it is “to rape or not to rape”. It is your scenario that states that the only option is “to kill” while mine the only option is “to rape”. You only think that your scenario better describes reality than mine. I think both describe it the same way… miserably.

 

[Betterave]

You’d have to give me proof for such.

Seriously? In that case I pity you, since you are waaaayyy out of touch with reality. A presidential bodyguard carries a gun and is trained to kill for a reason. It might be necessary in order to save the president’s life. Rapists are not trained to sexually assault women so as to conceive the wunderkind who will cure cancer - that is completely idiotic dude, and I pity the fool who can’t see that.

Hugs,
David

 

[dskysmine]

Seriously? In that case I pity you, since you are waaaayyy out of touch with reality. A presidential bodyguard carries a gun and is trained to kill for a reason. It might be necessary in order to save the president’s life. Rapists are not trained to sexually assault women so as to conceive the wunderkind who will cure cancer - that is completely idiotic dude, and I pity the fool who can’t see that.

Hugs,
David

In reality he can just as easily kill the subject as disarm him. It just goes to show the kind of respect there is towards human life these days. Peter also tried to protect Jesus from being injustly killed but Jesus asked him to guard his sword. I’d call that a lesson in humility.


Hugs,
Daniel

 

[Betterave]

Not at all… Justification for “immoral actions” such as the one you described are just subjective morality reminiscences.

Begging the question.

When you step on a friend by accident you are “justified” to having hurt him even though you didn’t mean to, so you always apologize.

Irrelevant and false (you can’t be ‘justified’ in doing something unintentionally).

I pity you because:
1- You started arguing “against” Spock because you thought morality was objective and are now ending the discussion on his side,

Spock is not defending subjective morality, is he? If he is being reasonable, why shouldn’t I be on his side? You need to get out of your little polemical box and actually start thinking.

2- You think your subjective morality is “higher guided” than others and your attitude clearly shows it.

I have no idea what you mean here.

I made the same definitions that you did in your scenario.
The moral bound in your case is towards the protection of life of the president, in mine it is the protection of thousands of lives that die with cancer.

Wrong. The bodyguard is morally bound to do his job, which is perfectly legitimate. In yours some rapist is morally bound to rape someone… and somehow you think these cases are equivalent.

The moral decision in your is “to kill or not to kill”, in mine it is “to rape or not to rape”. It is your scenario that states that the only option is “to kill” while mine the only option is “to rape”.

You continue to butcher this scenario thing. In mine the only justified option is to kill the unjust aggressor as a matter of duty, to stop him from murdering the president. In yours the only option is to go find and rape some innocent woman in the arbitrary pursuit of some bizarre delusion…

You only think that your scenario better describes reality than mine. I think both describe it the same way… miserably.

…and you think both scenarios describe reality equally miserably? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

 

[Betterave]

In reality he can just as easily kill the subject as disarm him. It just goes to show the kind of respect there is towards human life these days. Peter also tried to protect Jesus from being injustly killed but Jesus asked him to guard his sword. I’d call that a lesson in humility.


Hugs,
Daniel

“In reality” you are making arbitrary and unjustified assumptions about reality. If the bodyguard can just as easily disarm the assassin (that’s a different scenario!), then he is not justified in killing him! (Duh!)

As for Peter putting his sword away, I’d say that’s a lesson in obedience to authority. How is it a “lesson in humility” that is somehow relevant here?

 

[jonfawkes]

How does he do that except by his own act of will?? This is again a false dichotomy: defer to the Father’s will or follow his own will. That is a false dichotomy!

You can also bring up red herrings like “oh but there’s a fine line - what about blue suicide” which has nothing to do with your claim: “any intentional failure to defend oneself, using whatever means are available, is suicide” - which is an absurd claim that any can see to be absurd. If you disagree, at least do so honestly without introducing silly red herrings.

It is not just that, however; suicide implies that death is aimed at as an end in itself, and not simply accepted as a consequence/side-effect of some other morally legitimate end.

I don’t know how He can have a will other than the Father’s since they are the same God - but there it is in the Bible.

Blue Suicide is relevant in that just as Jesus didn’t die directly by his own hand neither does a blue suicide. The intention to die is the same. They both end their lives though the vehicle of another’s action.

When is suicide ever an end to it’s self? A common (anecdotal) reason is to end personal suffering. There is ritual suicide as well. I haven’t heard of a suicide simply just to experience the act of dying. “hmmm I wonder what dying like”

Regardless, God set the perimeters of the redemption of Humanity. A blood sacrifice was required. Jesus had to die. He incarnated to die. The dying is the significant act.

 

[Betterave]

I don’t know how He can have a will other than the Father’s since they are the same God - but there it is in the Bible.

Well obviously you are a very poorly educated Catholic. But that’s not really relevant here.

Blue Suicide is relevant in that just as Jesus didn’t die directly by his own hand neither does a blue suicide. The intention to die is the same. They both end their lives though the vehicle of another’s action.

No, the intention to die is not the same. A blue suicide (not a term I’m familiar with, but I’m assuming it means doing something that will incite a police officer to shoot you?) is an act whereby one intentionally presents oneself as an unjust aggressor who can only be stopped by lethal force. This is nothing like the death of Jesus, surely?

When is suicide ever an end to it’s self? A common (anecdotal) reason is to end personal suffering. There is ritual suicide as well. I haven’t heard of a suicide simply just to experience the act of dying. “hmmm I wonder what dying like”

A suicide occurs when the end result *intended *by one’s action is one’s own death. This intention is not nullified, but *confirmed *by the fact that the death directly intended is also supposed to serve the purpose of ending one’s suffering.

If I become a Christian because I’m suffering and I want to be thrown to the lions, that would be suicide.

If I become a Christian because I am convinced of the truth of the gospel message and I know that as a result I will be thrown to the lions, that would not be suicide.

Do you see the difference?

Regardless, God set the perimeters of the redemption of Humanity. A blood sacrifice was required. Jesus had to die. He incarnated to die. The dying is the significant act.

No, the submission is the significant act. You’re getting into serious theology here, and your comment about Jesus’ will shows that you don’t know much about theology, so I’d rather just drop this, since it seems like a fruitless line of discussion.

 

[jonfawkes]

LOL! So what? Dismissing and rejecting advice is obviously not part of my scenario.

What are you talking about? (sounds like irrelevant rambling)

It is part of the scenario - you are placing the protection in the hands of the body guard making it his moral responsibility to act. Which is only partially true. Failure to act / live up to an oath is equivalent to lying.

Taking the shot as “duty” is very close, if not the Nuremberg defense. I am just following orders, without regard to my personal morality. Duty supersedes all other morality.

The act of protection is still an act of “self defense” by the President and should be judged in that light.

"Is it moral to use others to do “immoral” acts if the end is morally justifiable. The church says “no” you can’t use a moral end to justify immoral acts.

They use the term “civil community” - yes, a community is made up individuals but the defense of the whole isn’t dependent on the defense of one. They made specific word choices. - Frankly this isn’t worth squabbling over. The verbiage is clear.

 

[Betterave]

For a more current example of NOT a suicide:

In a video recording of an interview released by the Telegraph, Bhatti said that he had been threatened by the Taliban and other Islamic extremists, but said he was ready to die to protect the rights of Christians. “I am following the cross, and I am ready to die for a cause I am living for my community and suffering people, and I will die to defend their rights,” he said.

lifesitenews.com/news/pakistans-only-christian-official-shot-dead-by-islamic-extremists?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7b5a615bd1-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines03_02_2011&utm_medium=email

 

[jonfawkes]

Well obviously you are a very poorly educated Catholic. But that’s not really relevant here.

Three distinct persons one God, but the unified God nature would be the superior nature. How can that be divided by the wills of the individual personships of the trinity? How can each person of the trinity want different things and still be the unified God?

No, the intention to die is not the same. A blue suicide (not a term I’m familiar with, but I’m assuming it means doing something that will incite a police officer to shoot you?) is an act whereby one intentionally presents oneself as an unjust aggressor who can only be stopped by lethal force. This is nothing like the death of Jesus, surely?

The intention is to die at another’s hand They are carried out the same. Provoke the authority until they kill you.

A suicide occurs when the end result *intended *by one’s action is one’s own death. This intention is not nullified, but *confirmed *by the fact that the death directly intended is also supposed to serve the purpose of ending one’s suffering.

If I become a Christian because I’m suffering and I want to be thrown to the lions, that would be suicide.

If I become a Christian because I am convinced of the truth of the gospel message and I know that as a result I will be thrown to the lions, that would not be suicide.

Do you see the difference?

I see the distinction you are trying to draw, but I disagree. The act of becoming a Christian is to alleviate the suffering of this world for the promise of the next. Both acts are to alleviate suffering and end in certain death. You can ascribe purity to one act if you like.

No, the submission is the significant act. You’re getting into serious theology here, and your comment about Jesus’ will shows that you don’t know much about theology, so I’d rather just drop this, since it seems like a fruitless line of discussion.

Enlighten me - Jesus had to die so that we could be saved. He is the paschal lamb. Where am I off base.

 

[jonfawkes]

For a more current example of NOT a suicide:

In a video recording of an interview released by the Telegraph, Bhatti said that he had been threatened by the Taliban and other Islamic extremists, but said he was ready to die to protect the rights of Christians. “I am following the cross, and I am ready to die for a cause I am living for my community and suffering people, and I will die to defend their rights,” he said.

lifesitenews.com/news/pakistans-only-christian-official-shot-dead-by-islamic-extremists?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7b5a615bd1-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines03_02_2011&utm_medium=email

Death in defense is not an inevitability. Jesus’ death by crucifixion was - it was prophecy.

 

[Betterave]

It is part of the scenario - you are placing the protection in the hands of the body guard making it his moral responsibility to act. Which is only partially true. Failure to act / live up to an oath is equivalent to lying.

Huh? More disjointed rambling?

Taking the shot as “duty” is very close, if not the Nuremberg defense. I am just following orders, without regard to my personal morality. Duty supersedes all other morality.

That’s ridiculous. Killing an assassin to stop him from killing the president vs. killing an innocent Jew… Right, that’s the same.

The act of protection is still an act of “self defense” by the President and should be judged in that light.

…more disjointed rambling…

"Is it moral to use others to do “immoral” acts if the end is morally justifiable. The church says “no” you can’t use a moral end to justify immoral acts.

Point being…?

They use the term “civil community” - yes, a community is made up individuals but the defense of the whole isn’t dependent on the defense of one. They made specific word choices. - Frankly this isn’t worth squabbling over. The verbiage is clear.

The ‘verbiage’ is clearly against you and your reading. The defense of the whole isn’t *critically *dependent on the successful defense of any particular ‘one’; but the defense of the whole and the good of the civil community absolutely is dependent on the commitment to defend each one from unjust aggressors so far as is possible, especially civil leaders.

 

[Betterave]

Three distinct persons one God, but the unified God nature would be the superior nature. How can that be divided by the wills of the individual personships of the trinity? How can each person of the trinity want different things and still be the unified God?

Please research the word ‘monotheletism.’

The intention is to die at another’s hand They are carried out the same. Provoke the authority until they kill you.

That is a disgusting caricature of the life of our Saviour, as if there is any analogy between the kinds of ‘provocation’ in question. John 18, 23: “Jesus answered him: If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why do you strike me?” You seem to really not care about the difference between truth and lies. It’s really very sad to see.

I see the distinction you are trying to draw, but I disagree. The act of becoming a Christian is to alleviate the suffering of this world for the promise of the next. Both acts are to alleviate suffering and end in certain death. You can ascribe purity to one act if you like.

As I just said: You seem to really not care about the difference between truth and lies. It’s really very sad to see.

[Given your ludicrous description of “the act of becoming a Christian,” I would have to assume that you have never actually become a Christian yourself.]

Enlighten me - Jesus had to die so that we could be saved. He is the paschal lamb. Where am I off base.

Jesus chose to die. He chose to become the paschal lamb. He chose obedience because he wanted to save us. He did not kill himself. He did not commit blue suicide. He died testifying to the truth.

 

[Betterave]

Death in defense is not an inevitability. Jesus’ death by crucifixion was - it was prophecy.

…more disjointed rambling…

 

[jonfawkes]

Huh? More disjointed rambling?

That’s ridiculous. Killing an assassin to stop him from killing the president vs. killing an innocent Jew… Right, that’s the same.

…more disjointed rambling…

Point being…?

The ‘verbiage’ is clearly against you and your reading. The defense of the whole isn’t *critically *dependent on the successful defense of any particular ‘one’; but the defense of the whole and the good of the civil community absolutely is dependent on the commitment to defend each one from unjust aggressors so far as is possible, especially civil leaders.

You put forth that the bodyguard has a moral obligation to save the president by killing the assassin.

Yes?

His moral obligation is to his duty. To fail to act is the equivalent to lying - correct?

"I will kill to do my duty. " Correct?

If that is the tact - “duty” is the moral good that must be protected. To the point of taking a life. It supersedes any other personal moral qualms that one might have about killing.

This is similar to the Nuremberg defense. You’ve just qualified the one killed “innocent Jew” vs Assassin. You’ve made a qualitative judgement about who is being killed. Regardless the act killing still comes from “duty.”

Adding qualifiers willy nilly just makes for a sloppy exercise. We can’t make any judgements on the goodness of the president or the evilness of the assassin. The presidents death may be a moral good. But again it makes for a messy exercise. So we focus on the act. Which stems from duty.

Another tact is to take the moral responsibility and place on the president. Any act of killing that is in his defense is an act of self defense and by his authority. He is the one morally responsible. It places his life above those who protect him.

Both of these concepts are against church teaching - ends don’t justify the means and the sanctity of all human life. Yet we also know the Pope has body guards. The Catholic Church won’t fall if the Pope is assassinated.

So there is another moral concept going on here. Yet to be identified.

 

[Betterave]

You put forth that the bodyguard has a moral obligation to save the president by killing the assassin.

Yes?

Yes.

His moral obligation is to his duty. To fail to act is the equivalent to lying - correct?

Incorrect. His failure to act could be related to an act of lying, but it is certainly not equivalent to it, and may have nothing to do with an act of lying.

"I will kill to do my duty. " Correct?

No, that misses the point. “It is my duty to kill” is correct.

If that is the tact - “duty” is the moral good that must be protected. To the point of taking a life. It supersedes any other personal moral qualms that one might have about killing.

No it doesn’t. Why would you say that? If you have personal moral qualms about killing, you shouldn’t carry a gun and agree to protect the president’s life using lethal force is necessary.

This is similar to the Nuremberg defense. You’ve just qualified the one killed “innocent Jew” vs Assassin. You’ve made a qualitative judgement about who is being killed. Regardless the act killing still comes from “duty.”

No, that’s stupid. You cannot have a duty to do something that is immoral. Duty is being used in a moral context here. It isn’t being used in the sense where you might say, “one of the royal groom’s duties (i.e., assigned tasks) is to exercise the king’s horse at nine o’clock every day.”

Adding qualifiers willy nilly just makes for a sloppy exercise. We can’t make any judgements on the goodness of the president or the evilness of the assassin. The presidents death may be a moral good. But again it makes for a messy exercise. So we focus on the act. Which stems from duty.

So “innocent Jew” vs. “not-so-innocent assassin” is a case of adding qualifiers willy-nilly?? That’s really willy, nilly!

Another tact is to take the moral responsibility and place on the president. Any act of killing that is in his defense is an act of self defense and by his authority. He is the one morally responsible. It places his life above those who protect him.

First: “tact” again? Do you mean “tack”?
Second: what is your point here?

Both of these concepts are against church teaching - ends don’t justify the means and the sanctity of all human life. Yet we also know the Pope has body guards. The Catholic Church won’t fall if the Pope is assassinated.

Both of which concepts are against Church teaching??

**

So there is another moral concept going on here. Yet to be identified.

“So…”? No idea what you’re talking about here.**

 

[jonfawkes]

Please research the word ‘monotheletism.’

Two natures, two wills still doesn’t explain how they co-exist. The Trinity is a mystery. The inner workings are equally mysterious.

That is a disgusting caricature of the life of our Saviour, as if there is any analogy between the kinds of ‘provocation’ in question. John 18, 23: “Jesus answered him: If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why do you strike me?” You seem to really not care about the difference between truth and lies. It’s really very sad to see.

I don’t mean to offend you. I am taking away the trappings and seeing what is left. Regardless whether their feeling of provocation was justified it was still felt. Jesus’ statement was also a shot over their bow. He incarnated to be killed. It was His intention, it was prophesied. He angered the right people, so the prophecy could be fulfilled.

As I just said: You seem to really not care about the difference between truth and lies. It’s really very sad to see.

[Given your ludicrous description of “the act of becoming a Christian,” I would have to assume that you have never actually become a Christian yourself.]

Jesus chose to die. He chose to become the paschal lamb. He chose obedience because he wanted to save us. He did not kill himself. He did not commit blue suicide. He died testifying to the truth.

I have given my Catholic pedigree on this forum before. If you interested you can find it.

Yes that is my point - he chose to die, that = suicide. We say someone commits suicide when someone chooses to end their own life.

 

[Betterave]

Two natures, two wills still doesn’t explain how they co-exist. The Trinity is a mystery. The inner workings are equally mysterious.

Do you have a point? Maybe you should consider that Jesus’ act of atonement in being crucified and killed is also a great mystery and you shouldn’t be so glib with your silly pat explanations.

I don’t mean to offend you. I am taking away the trappings and seeing what is left. Regardless whether their feeling of provocation was justified it was still felt. Jesus’ statement was also a shot over their bow. He incarnated to be killed. It was His intention, it was prophesied. He angered the right people, so the prophecy could be fulfilled.

Which confirms the sad fact that you see the difference between truth and lies, love and despair, sacrifice and pleasure-seeking, as mere ‘trappings’. When you think you can strip away these morally crucial ‘trappings’, it’s no wonder that your moral analysis ends up looking so ridiculous.

I wouldn’t worry about offending me; I would worry about offending Jesus, reducing his words and actions to the function of a provocation, just so he could get hisself killed and fulfill that crazy prophecy (if that’s all he was after, you’d think he might have chosen a more pleasant way to off himself).

I have given my Catholic pedigree on this forum before. If you interested you can find it.

I think I see your ‘Catholic pedigree’ sufficiently in every one of your posts.

Yes that is my point - he chose to die, that = suicide. We say someone commits suicide when someone chooses to end their own life.

“Choosing to die = choosing to end your own life”? No. Try again. Maximilian Kolbe chose to die; he did not choose to end his own life. Jesus chose to die; he did not choose to (and he did not) end his own life.