Morality? What morality?

[jonfawkes]

Yes.

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.

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

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.

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.”

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

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

Both of which concepts are against Church teaching??

**

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

Sorry, yes tack. Thank You.

First his duty is to protect not kill. Killing is a means to an end, not the duty itself.

The question is “why are morally obligated to kill to protect the President?” The answer is "duty."Jews were killed out of duty, our assassin is killed out of duty. “Just doing my job”

If we bring personal motivations (qualms) into the scenario it makes it convoluted. I miswrote I should have stated the Christian belief based on the ten commandments “Thou Shall not Kill” rather than personal qualms. Or perhaps our defender isn’t a Christian.

My point is that the Church teaches that all human life is sacred. Having a body guard implies that one life is more sacred than another. It also teaches one cannot do evil to achieve good (ends don’t justify the means) so killing another to achieve a moral good of saving a life isn’t justified. So it’s morally wrong on two accounts.

As a side note the Pope having body guards seems odd. If anyone is going to heaven it should be him - no? Why fear death. (we’ll save it for another conversation)

 

[jonfawkes]

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.

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

Ad hominem - yawn - not interested in mud flinging.

“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.

Maximilian did. He committed suicide to achieve a perceived greater good. He traded his life for the other. It’s still suicide - morally justifiable or not.

 

[Betterave]

First his duty is to protect not kill. Killing is a means to an end, not the duty itself.

Close to correct: his duty is to protect, but not not to kill; his duty to protect may entail a duty to kill.

The question is “why are morally obligated to kill to protect the President?” The answer is "duty."Jews were killed out of duty, our assassin is killed out of duty. “Just doing my job”

I just tried to explain that to you. You’re equivocating, using ‘duty’ in a non-moral way, like the ‘duties’ of the royal groom, and pretending that’s the same as a moral duty. Nobody had a moral duty to kill Jews, even if they were assigned that task. Do you understand that??

If we bring personal motivations (qualms) into the scenario it makes it convoluted. I miswrote I should have stated the Christian belief based on the ten commandments “Thou Shall not Kill” rather than personal qualms. Or perhaps our defender isn’t a Christian.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but “thou shalt not kill” refers to murder, unjustified killing. It is obviously not a claim that killing is never justified.

My point is that the Church teaches that all human life is sacred. Having a body guard implies that one life is more sacred than another. It also teaches one cannot do evil to achieve good (ends don’t justify the means) so killing another to achieve a moral good of saving a life isn’t justified. So it’s morally wrong on two accounts.

None of that makes sense. The point of having a bodyguard is to preserve human life and that has nothing to do with using evil means to achieve a good end - lethal force against an unjust aggressor is not necessarily evil, it may be fully justified. Maybe you should try reading the Catechism? This is very basic stuff.

As a side note the Pope having body guards seems odd. If anyone is going to heaven it should be him - no? Why fear death. (we’ll save it for another conversation)

Sure, and why should he wear a seat belt? Why get your kids vaccinated? - infants are even more certain of going to heaven than the Pope! Indeed: why not let terrorists do whatever they feel like to disrupt social order? - we’re all going to die anyway. And if God doesn’t like any of it, he can always step in and personally intervene. In any case, we can always get a new Pope, we certainly shouldn’t get too attached to the one we have.

 

[Betterave]

Ad hominem - yawn - not interested in mud flinging.

More like not interested in self-awareness. Which again confirms the sad fact: You seem to really not care about the difference between truth and lies.

Maximilian did. He committed suicide to achieve a perceived greater good. He traded his life for the other. It’s still suicide - morally justifiable or not.

LOL! “Suicide is seriously contrary to justice, hope, and charity” (CCC 2325) - but Maximilian committed suicide? So I guess he used an evil means to achieve a ‘perceived’ greater good? LOL! Have a nice day.

 

[jonfawkes]

Close to correct: his duty is to protect, but not not to kill; his duty to protect may entail a duty to kill.

I think we are in agreement - that was the distinction I was trying to make.

I just tried to explain that to you. You’re equivocating, using ‘duty’ in a non-moral way, like the ‘duties’ of the royal groom, and pretending that’s the same as a moral duty. Nobody had a moral duty to kill Jews, even if they were assigned that task. Do you understand that??

If not from duty what is moral obligation of the body guard to kill for hire as part of his job to protect?

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but “thou shalt not kill” refers to murder, unjustified killing. It is obviously not a claim that killing is never justified.

I agree the more direct message is thou “shall not do murder” - which leads us to “what is murder” - can the killing of the assassin be classified as murder? Committing one murder to prevent another. Without the motivations of the parties it is very hard, if not impossible to tell.

None of that makes sense. The point of having a bodyguard is to preserve human life and that has nothing to do with using evil means to achieve a good end - lethal force against an unjust aggressor is not necessarily evil, it may be fully justified. Maybe you should try reading the Catechism? This is very basic stuff.

You are making assumptions - Saddam Hussein was also a president. You are assuming the benevolence of the “president”. His body guards were tasked with protecting him, but protecting him wasn’t advantageous to his citizenry or a ultimate moral good.

Sure, and why should he wear a seat belt? Why get your kids vaccinated? - infants are even more certain of going to heaven than the Pope! Indeed: why not let terrorists do whatever they feel like to disrupt social order? - we’re all going to die anyway. And if God doesn’t like any of it, he can always step in and personally intervene. In any case, we can always get a new Pope, we certainly shouldn’t get too attached to the one we have.

If you say so

My point is if we can point to a man of faith - we should be able to point to the Pope. If he doesn’t feel that God is in charge, it isn’t very inspiring for the rest of us - no?

 

[jonfawkes]

More like not interested in self-awareness. Which again confirms the sad fact: You seem to really not care about the difference between truth and lies.

Disagreement with dogma doesn’t equal lack of self awareness. I might argue the contrary but it doesn’t interest me.

LOL! “Suicide is seriously contrary to justice, hope, and charity” (CCC 2325) - but Maximilian committed suicide? So I guess he used an evil means to achieve a ‘perceived’ greater good? LOL! Have a nice day.

It all hinges on the definition of suicide If you end your own life voluntarily I call it suicide. It may be morally justifiable just as killing others is sometimes morally justifiable.

 

[jonfawkes]

mis post

 

[dskysmine]

Begging the question.

What question? =)

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

Of course you can. How do you explain this?

“It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC, n. 1756.)

and this:

CCC 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.”

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.

You are on his side on the subjective morality wagon. That is why I pity you. I have no problem with you agreeing with him on other subjects.

I have no idea what you mean here.

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.

Why is a body guard that kills people more “legitimate” than a drug dealer? Both are doing things that some people want them to do. Many people have bodyguards, not just the president. And by the way, some bodyguards don’t use lethal weapons.

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…

Funny how you butchered my scenario… I never stated your wife was innocent, or that there was a pursuit of some bizarre delusion. I stated that the offspring of that rape would cure cancer, that was the scenario I presented. It is your “butchering” that changed the scenario. You still can’t grasp this objective morality thing… but whatever… your life, your eternity.

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

Yes I am.

“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!)

Just like your “pursuit of some bizarre delusion” is a different scenario.

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?

The lesson isn’t to Peter, it is to you! You just can’t see it.

Take care,
Daniel

 

[Spock]

“It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC, n. 1756.)

and this:

CCC 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.”

Nonsense. When one raises a gun in self defense, one may wish that there would be a different way to defend one’s life. But that wish is just an idle wish. In that moment the harsh reality is simple: kill or be killed. The defender raises the gun, aims the gun and pulls the trigger. That is a murder. And it is considered morally justifiable.

No mumbling about some stupid double-effect can change this fact.

Of course two quoted paragraphs are also contradictory (no surprise there). In the first one it says that there can be no intents and circumstances… in the second one it talks about the exception due to circumstances (self defense), and talks about the different intent (“double” intent). No wonder that the Cathecism cannot be taken seriously. Wishy-washy stuff.

By the way, I do not argue for some subjective morality, and Betterave understands this. I am saying that a few simplistic commands cannot cover the complexities of real life scenarios. No one has dared to investigate the scenarios I presented.

 

[Betterave]

Of course you can. How do you explain this?

“It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC, n. 1756.)

and this:

CCC 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.”

Okay, I see where you’re confused. Spock is wrong to dismiss the principle of double effect as stupid (and we can discuss that as the need arises), but at least he’s more clued in than you are as to what the CCC is talking about here. This has absolutely nothing to do with “stepping on a friend by accident,” i.e., unintentionally stepping on a friend. Such an action is not voluntarily chosen, so it cannot possibly be the subject of a moral analysis. The ‘unintended effects’ referred to here are effects that are foreseen and accepted, but are not desired as such - in other words, the bodyguard knows that he will almost certainly kill the assassin when he shoots him and he accepts this, but his direct intention is to protect the president, and he is not morally justified in being happy to have the chance to shoot and/or kill someone… which will bring us back to the original and more interesting discussion Spock and I were having - before his trip and heart attack so rudely intervened - about why such a thing as intentions do matter, morally speaking.

 

[Betterave]

It all hinges on the definition of suicide If you end your own life voluntarily I call it suicide. It may be morally justifiable just as killing others is sometimes morally justifiable.

I’ve just given you the definition. If you want to have a discussion based on your own private definition, you should be up-front about this. (That seems like a waste of time to me, so I’ll excuse myself and not participate.) What would you think if I said that almost all people with disposable income are murderers, because we choose to end the lives of children who die from conditions associated with living in poverty by refusing to use our disposable income to provide them with basic life necessities? So you and I are murderers. You’re a strange guy, so you *might *just agree with me, but hopefully you’d reject that argument and tell me that I’m using the word ‘murder’ in an arbitrarily stipulative way and that is simply not an acceptable way to use the word - *unless *I have made it clear that I am not *intending *to use the word according to its standard meaning, i.e., I’m just doing some rhetorical grandstanding.

 

[Betterave]

Funny how you butchered my scenario… I never stated your wife was innocent, or that there was a pursuit of some bizarre delusion. I stated that the offspring of that rape would cure cancer, that was the scenario I presented. It is your “butchering” that changed the scenario. You still can’t grasp this objective morality thing… but whatever… your life, your eternity.

LOL! YOU’re trying to teach ME about humility! That’s rich. I’m sorry, dude, but your scenario was about my wife, and my wife is innocent! You didn’t have to state it - it’s a fact. And as far as ‘bizarre delusions’ go, that is an accidental feature of your scenario which just happens to be true, and is certainly relevant insofar as we are interested in real-world scenarios. I noted this feature of your scenario, but my doing so was incidental to my moral analysis. Sorry you didn’t notice that. Maybe if you reined in your own pride, instead of being so self-righteously concerned with teaching me humility, you might have noticed this. LOL!

 

[Betterave]

Why is a body guard that kills people more “legitimate” than a drug dealer? Both are doing things that some people want them to do. Many people have bodyguards, not just the president. And by the way, some bodyguards don’t use lethal weapons.

Let’s play a game. Let’s pretend that Jesus is talking to you and he says:

Daniel, Daniel, that is foolish nonsense you are spouting. Now please Daniel, I didn’t give you an intellect so that you could abuse it like this. Please tell me: are you really objectively certain that your claims here make sense and express the truth? Remember when I had to say to Paul: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” Are you quite certain that you are not in the same kind of self-righteously convinced position as he was?

Now this is Jesus talking, remember, so how would you reply to him?

 

[dskysmine]

Nonsense. When one raises a gun in self defense, one may wish that there would be a different way to defend one’s life. But that wish is just an idle wish. In that moment the harsh reality is simple: kill or be killed. The defender raises the gun, aims the gun and pulls the trigger. That is a murder. And it is considered morally justifiable.

No mumbling about some stupid double-effect can change this fact.

Of course two quoted paragraphs are also contradictory (no surprise there). In the first one it says that there can be no intents and circumstances… in the second one it talks about the exception due to circumstances (self defense), and talks about the different intent (“double” intent). No wonder that the Cathecism cannot be taken seriously. Wishy-washy stuff.

By the way, I do not argue for some subjective morality, and Betterave understands this. I am saying that a few simplistic commands cannot cover the complexities of real life scenarios. No one has dared to investigate the scenarios I presented.

1st - I don’t know what scenarios you are talking about.
2nd - All of your arguments seem to support a view of subjective morality, if not then please explain your position.
3rd - If the intention is to stop an “evil” from happening, that may require a shoot from a gun or it may not and it may end up killing the other person or it may not, that is why I made those several questions regarding the scenario presented. If the intention is to kill the other human then it is morally wrong, and there’s no doubt about it.

Okay, I see where you’re confused. Spock is wrong to dismiss the principle of double effect as stupid (and we can discuss that as the need arises), but at least he’s more clued in than you are as to what the CCC is talking about here. This has absolutely nothing to do with “stepping on a friend by accident,” i.e., unintentionally stepping on a friend. Such an action is not voluntarily chosen, so it cannot possibly be the subject of a moral analysis. The ‘unintended effects’ referred to here are effects that are foreseen and accepted, but are not desired as such - in other words, the bodyguard knows that he will almost certainly kill the assassin when he shoots him and he accepts this, but his direct intention is to protect the president, and he is not morally justified in being happy to have the chance to shoot and/or kill someone… which will bring us back to the original and more interesting discussion Spock and I were having - before his trip and heart attack so rudely intervened - about why such a thing as intentions do matter, morally speaking.

You are the mistaken one… it is similar to the stepping of the friend. I am walking to reach my goal and my friend budges in and I end up hurting him. I do not forsee the injury of my friend (it could be anyone else for that matter), in the scenario I thought you presented, the bodyguard wanted to stop the murder of the president without intending to kill the other party, which is why I mentioned other possibilities like shooting at the arm or shooting at the weapon, etc… this does not forsee the killing of the “assassin”. If he does not intend to kill the assassin he may still be justified, but he still owes an apology to God for having killed another human being, just like I still owe an apology for hurting my friend, even if he budged in my way. His injury was unintended by me.
There are differences between the two scenarios, no doubt, but the principle of not doing harm to human life is still there.

 

[dskysmine]

LOL! YOU’re trying to teach ME about humility! That’s rich. I’m sorry, dude, but your scenario was about my wife, and my wife is innocent! You didn’t have to state it - it’s a fact. And as far as ‘bizarre delusions’ go, that is an accidental feature of your scenario which just happens to be true, and is certainly relevant insofar as we are interested in real-world scenarios. I noted this feature of your scenario, but my doing so was incidental to my moral analysis. Sorry you didn’t notice that. Maybe if you reined in your own pride, instead of being so self-righteously concerned with teaching me humility, you might have noticed this. LOL!

The problem being that your “real-world” scenario is completely impossible to challenge … while mine apparently isn’t.

Let’s play a game. Let’s pretend that Jesus is talking to you and he says:

Daniel, Daniel, that is foolish nonsense you are spouting. Now please Daniel, I didn’t give you an intellect so that you could abuse it like this. Please tell me: are you really objectively certain that your claims here make sense and express the truth? Remember when I had to say to Paul: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” Are you quite certain that you are not in the same kind of self-righteously convinced position as he was?

Now this is Jesus talking, remember, so how would you reply to him?

I would reply:
"My only certain is You, my Lord. You are the Path, the Truth, and the Life. If I am not following Your Path of Life, please guide me to it. You once told me to never doubt Your word, and now everyone is trying to ask me to doubt It because it doesn’t fit with what is justifiable. My life is Yours, and only You can take it. I will be sure to accept Your request whenever it may come. Please help the president and his bodyguards to realize It…

Oh, and by the way, can you please ask Betterave to stop insulting me? Thanks! Hope to see You one day =)"

 

[jonfawkes]

I’ve just given you the definition. If you want to have a discussion based on your own private definition, you should be up-front about this. (That seems like a waste of time to me, so I’ll excuse myself and not participate.) What would you think if I said that almost all people with disposable income are murderers, because we choose to end the lives of children who die from conditions associated with living in poverty by refusing to use our disposable income to provide them with basic life necessities? So you and I are murderers. You’re a strange guy, so you *might *just agree with me, but hopefully you’d reject that argument and tell me that I’m using the word ‘murder’ in an arbitrarily stipulative way and that is simply not an acceptable way to use the word - *unless *I have made it clear that I am not *intending *to use the word according to its standard meaning, i.e., I’m just doing some rhetorical grandstanding.

Ha, no I’m taking my definition from Merriam Webster -

a : the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind

 

[Betterave]

The problem being that your “real-world” scenario is completely impossible to challenge … while mine apparently isn’t.

What is that supposed to mean?

I would reply:
"My only certain is You, my Lord. You are the Path, the Truth, and the Life. If I am not following Your Path of Life, please guide me to it. You once told me to never doubt Your word, and now everyone is trying to ask me to doubt It because it doesn’t fit with what is justifiable. My life is Yours, and only You can take it. I will be sure to accept Your request whenever it may come. Please help the president and his bodyguards to realize It…

Oh, and by the way, can you please ask Betterave to stop insulting me? Thanks! Hope to see You one day =)"

Thanks for playing. Could we continue? Suppose Jesus replied to you:

You ask me to guide you, but I am trying to guide you! Why are you being so stubborn? Now where has Betterave insulted you? If he has spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong - say where he is wrong; if he has not, then why do so haughtily dismiss him and accuse him of insulting you? Why do you claim that you are only certain of me, then clearly imply that you are just as certain of what “fits” with “what is justifiable”? I just told you to stop spouting foolish nonsense, and yet you go right back to assuming that your foolish nonsense is the truth! You are very wrong to do so, but I can understand that within your limited understanding you feel justified in dismissing Betterave - he is not me, and it is antecedently possible that he might be wrong - but you dismiss *me *just as quickly, despite your false display of servility!

Now what would you say?

 

[Betterave]

Ha, no I’m taking my definition from Merriam Webster -

a : the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind

Do you seriously think this little citation proves that you are using the term correctly?? It doesn’t exactly circumscribe what counts as " taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind," and what does not, does it? You just back the question up into one regarding the meaning of intention, which I have just had to explain to dskysmine upthread. Please consult that explanation.

 

[Betterave]

To clarify, jon:
You being up-front and honest about your position, as opposed to engaging in rhetorical grandstanding, would have required you to say something like: “Though I claim to be Catholic, *I disagree *with the Church’s teaching on suicide - *but *my disagreement is at least partly merely verbal, since it is a result of my choosing not to use the word in the same way as the Church does.”

 

[jonfawkes]

Do you seriously think this little citation proves that you are using the term correctly?? It doesn’t exactly circumscribe what counts as " taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind," and what does not, does it? You just back the question up into one regarding the meaning of intention, which I have just had to explain to dskysmine upthread. Please consult that explanation.

Will you accept the Catholic Encyclopedia?

Suicide is the act of one who causes his own death, either by positively destroying his own life, as by inflicting on himself a mortal wound or injury, or by omitting to do what is necessary to escape death, as by refusing to leave a burning house. From a moral standpoint we must treat therefore not only the prohibition of positive suicide, but also the obligation incumbent on man to preserve his life.

How about the CCC?

2280-2281 bolding mine

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.

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.