Morality? What morality?

[tonyrey]

Obviously not. It is sophistry to distinguish between killing yourself and committing an act which you know will result in your death. The overriding principle is that your intention to end your life and your execution of that intention are justified if the result is the lesser of two evils.

I should add that if we knowingly choose what we believe to be the lesser of two evils - like killing ourselves when it is the only way to save many other people from suffering and death - we should be commended for courage not condemned for breaking one of the rules. It is only those who are preoccupied with the purity of their own conscience and their own salvation at the cost of everyone else who think otherwise. No doubt at the first whiff of torture they would reveal information which leads to the nuclear destruction of an entire city.

 

[Betterave]

No I didn’t…

Yes you did.

YOU ignored my questions regarding your scenario and then accused me of not making questions. That’s called “lying”.

That’s ridiculous. My point was a general one. There were exceptions, but that hardly invalidates my general point. My general point was true, and you certainly have no reasonable grounds for accusing me of lying. Grow up.

I’m not using the Bible literally… I’m using it to base my conclusions.

Yeah, obviously that’s what you *think *you’re doing! How is that relevant to my point?

The conclusions I made are probably never mentioned in the Bible. At least I’ve never seen them directly expressed there.

Again: yeah, obviously! (They’re actually contradicted by the Bible.) So what is your point??

I also find it amusing that you’d use an example that would counteract my conclusions instead of expressing what is in fact the base of morality because, let’s face it… you obviously haven’t made much effort in thinking about it.

Sure, let’s face it! LOL! Don’t be such an arrogant idiot, seriously! Put you big fat amused ego away and try to make some at least half-way intelligent comments.

I have never had a problem finding out if something is wrong or is right, and I’ve done both very often. You seem to struggle with the first.

What are you talking about?

Best wishes,
Daniel

Same to you.

 

[angel18]

originally posted by tonyrey

I should add that if we knowingly choose what we believe to be the lesser of two evils - like killing ourselves when it is the only way to save many other people from suffering and death - we should be commended for courage not condemned for breaking one of the rules. It is only those who are preoccupied with the purity of their own conscience and their own salvation at the cost of everyone else who think otherwise. No doubt at the first whiff of torture they would reveal information which leads to the nuclear destruction of an entire city.

Your comments excellent, I could not agree at all. thank God I have been reunited with you through this forumhttp://freeimagestocks.com/content/11/dot.png thank you all.

 

[dskysmine]

Yes you did.

I so didn’t that I ended up answering to your scenario-question…

That’s ridiculous. My point was a general one. There were exceptions, but that hardly invalidates my general point. My general point was true, and you certainly have no reasonable grounds for accusing me of lying. Grow up.

-.- You never made a point. You still have no explanation for an objective morality other than “what the Church says”. Even though I follow the Church, the Church cannot deal with every single problem that appears in our day to day lives. Which is why you need to find the real source of morality.

Yeah, obviously that’s what you *think *you’re doing! How is that relevant to my point?

It’s relevant because you stated that the bodyguard was morally obliged to kill another human being and Peter when defended Jesus was scolded… which proves you wrong.

Again: yeah, obviously! (They’re actually contradicted by the Bible.) So what is your point??

Funny that you never quoted one sentence that showed it.

Sure, let’s face it! LOL! Don’t be such an arrogant idiot, seriously! Put you big fat amused ego away and try to make some at least half-way intelligent comments.

Think whatever you want from me… but at least use arguments instead of insults.

What are you talking about?

The design of scenarios that some would consider “extreme” to try to push the boundaries of moral “laws” seems to me like a perfect example of not knowing exactly what they mean or why they exist.

Same to you.

Sincere regards,
Daniel

 

[tonyrey]

Your comments excellent, I could not agree at all. thank God I have been reunited with you through this forumhttp://freeimagestocks.com/content/11/dot.png thank you all.

Thanks, Daniel. Your praise is a refreshing contrast to the vituperative comments of “Catholic vipers”!

 

[jonfawkes]

Which is irrelevant, jon. Why don’t you try reading what I wrote and actually responding to it?

“Suicides exist, for example, Saul” is a bare statement of fact. As such it does not constitute a relevant point in a moral analysis. Obviously.

That is the point, they are presented as fact without condemnation. There isn’t any qualifiers like “and so displeased the Lord” - they are in fact looked as heroic acts. They are relevant to any discussion of Christian morality concerning suicide. Saul’s armorbearer also falls on his sword. No mention of displeasing the Lord.

 

[Betterave]

That is the point, they are presented as fact without condemnation. There isn’t any qualifiers like “and so displeased the Lord” - they are in fact looked as heroic acts. They are relevant to any discussion of Christian morality concerning suicide. Saul’s armorbearer also falls on his sword. No mention of displeasing the Lord.

That is ridiculous. “No mention; therefore I’ll fill in the blank however I want, ignoring what the Church has to say about the matter.” “No condemnation; therefore approbation.” Those are obvious non sequiturs.

 

[Betterave]

I so didn’t that I ended up answering to your scenario-question…

What are you talking about?

-.- You never made a point. You still have no explanation for an objective morality other than “what the Church says”. Even though I follow the Church, the Church cannot deal with every single problem that appears in our day to day lives. Which is why you need to find the real source of morality.

I never made a point? Er, right. Why were you accusing me of lying then? Gratuitous slander?

It’s relevant because you stated that the bodyguard was morally obliged to kill another human being and Peter when defended Jesus was scolded… which proves you wrong.

LOL! You’re serious? You actually think that Peter was in the same position as a bodyguard? I don’t know why I bother…

Funny that you never quoted one sentence that showed it.

That’s not funny, is it? In any case, you should try reading it. It should be extremely obvious.

Think whatever you want from me… but at least use arguments instead of insults.

That was not an insult! It was an accurate description of you and your behavior and an appropriate recommendation in light of that.

The design of scenarios that some would consider “extreme” to try to push the boundaries of moral “laws” seems to me like a perfect example of not knowing exactly what they mean or why they exist.

I still have no idea what you’re talking about or how this is supposed to relate to what you wrote before.

 

[jonfawkes]

That is ridiculous. “No mention; therefore I’ll fill in the blank however I want, ignoring what the Church has to say about the matter.” “No condemnation; therefore approbation.” Those are obvious non sequiturs.

I’m not filling in the blank, I’m looking how the suicides are presented in context. They are presented as heroic acts, which is contrary to the catechism. So what is the difference? Is it a difference between Judaism and Christianity? Does the catechism discount altruistic suicide? There is more going on then the catechism accounts for.

No doubt that suicide is not a desired outcome for anyone. To deem altruistic self killing as “sacrifice” leads to the question - what do they sacrifice? They sacrifice themselves. How do they sacrifice themselves? They kill themselves (or allow themselves to be killed). What is self killing called? Suicide. So it’s simply misdirection.

Just this morning I heard the effort to dump sea water from a helicopter on the Japanese nuclear plant in an effort to cool it as a “suicide mission” because of the radiation levels - surely anyone that takes this on, is doing an altruistic and heroic act and …suicide.

 

[dskysmine]

What are you talking about?

I never made a point? Er, right. Why were you accusing me of lying then? Gratuitous slander?

LOL! You’re serious? You actually think that Peter was in the same position as a bodyguard? I don’t know why I bother…

That’s not funny, is it? In any case, you should try reading it. It should be extremely obvious.

That was not an insult! It was an accurate description of you and your behavior and an appropriate recommendation in light of that.

I still have no idea what you’re talking about or how this is supposed to relate to what you wrote before.

This is getting ridiculous Betterave… I’m not going to argue point for point till we are fed up. You make no argument for an objective morality other than the expression “The Church says so”. That doesn’t make morality objective. And you don’t make sense when using expressions like “justifiable”. No one needs to justify good deeds, they speak for themselves and have their own merits. It’s bad deeds that you justify to yourself and to society. If you have any argument you would like to present either for a subjective moraity or for an objective morality be my guest… if you don’t want to present your case and just want to discard everyone else then I find no use for your contribution.

Best of wishes…
Daniel

 

[Betterave]

I’m not filling in the blank, I’m looking how the suicides are presented in context. They are presented as heroic acts, which is contrary to the catechism. So what is the difference? Is it a difference between Judaism and Christianity? Does the catechism discount altruistic suicide? There is more going on then the catechism accounts for.

You certainly are filling in the blanks. You are not at liberty to interpret scripture however you want, not as long as you pretend to be a Catholic. The clear moral instruction contained in the Catechism obviously supersedes your personal interpretation of a couple of obscure OT stories. It should be perfectly obvious that many of the ‘heroic’ stories presented in the OT do not and cannot serve as moral norms for us.

No doubt that suicide is not a desired outcome for anyone. To deem altruistic self killing as “sacrifice” leads to the question - what do they sacrifice? They sacrifice themselves. How do they sacrifice themselves? They kill themselves (or allow themselves to be killed). What is self killing called? Suicide. So it’s simply misdirection.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. You seem to be ignoring the points I have already mentioned earlier. So it’s simply misdirection.

Just this morning I heard the effort to dump sea water from a helicopter on the Japanese nuclear plant in an effort to cool it as a “suicide mission” because of the radiation levels - surely anyone that takes this on, is doing an altruistic and heroic act and …suicide.

No, not suicide. Death may be foreseen, but it is not intended. Therefore not suicide.

 

[Betterave]

This is getting ridiculous Betterave… I’m not going to argue point for point till we are fed up.

Getting ridiculous? LOL! It has been ridiculous since your first intervention. You’re right: you’re not going to argue point for point. You’re just going to stick to the same old MO: beg the question, ignore everything I say, pretend I said stuff I didn’t, and pretend you have Jesus on your side, so I must be wrong, poor ignorant me! That is ridiculous. At least you’ve got that right.

You make no argument for an objective morality other than the expression “The Church says so”.

LOL! Did I say that, Daniel? Please have the very minimal decency and honesty to either tell me where, or to apologize for making up foolish nonsense.

And you don’t make sense when using expressions like “justifiable”. No one needs to justify good deeds, they speak for themselves and have their own merits. It’s bad deeds that you justify to yourself and to society.

Maybe your English isn’t so good, but let me assure you: that is complete nonsense. Bad deeds are unjustifiable; if they were justifiable, they wouldn’t be bad deeds.

If you have any argument you would like to present either for a subjective moraity or for an objective morality be my guest… if you don’t want to present your case and just want to discard everyone else then I find no use for your contribution.

I’ve made my case. You have received it in a very pigheaded fashion. I can’t do much about that. It’s on you now: you have to choose to get your ego under control and to be reasonable and open-minded. May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

 

[ChiRho]

I agree with the OP, therefore his argument is true.
I disagree with the OP, therefore his argument is false.

Either way, it’s self defeating, because if I agree that the argument that morality is subjective is true, I haven’t made a claim that is useful for anyone else. If I disagree, then I’ve obviously not subscribed to it!

 

[Betterave]

Daniel:
It would also be minimally decent of you if you would either actually defend your accusation that I have been lying in this thread, or withdraw that accusation and apologize. The ball’s in your court…

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Jonfawkes, you sound like the person G.K. Chesterton was talking about in this section of Orthodoxy (with my emphases):

About the same time I read a solemn flippancy by some free thinker: he said that a suicide was only the same as a martyr. The open fallacy of this helped to clear the question. Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr.** A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything.** One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end. In other words, the martyr is noble, exactly because (however he renounces the world or execrates all humanity) he confesses this ultimate link with life; he sets his heart outside himself: he dies that something may live. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being: he is a mere destroyer; spiritually, he destroys the universe. And then I remembered the stake and the cross-roads, and the queer fact that Christianity had shown this weird harshness to the suicide. For Christianity had shown a wild encouragement of the martyr. Historic Christianity was accused, not entirely without reason, of carrying martyrdom and asceticism to a point, desolate and pessimistic. The early Christian martyrs talked of death with a horrible happiness. They blasphemed the beautiful duties of the body: they smelt the grave afar off like a field of flowers. All this has seemed to many the very poetry of pessimism. Yet there is the stake at the crossroads to show what Christianity thought of the pessimist.

So, to make an example, in this quote of yours:

Just this morning I heard the effort to dump sea water from a helicopter on the Japanese nuclear plant in an effort to cool it as a “suicide mission” because of the radiation levels - surely anyone that takes this on, is doing an altruistic and heroic act and …suicide.

The incident is not a case of attempted suicide, because the pilot does not want to die, but he wants others to live.

God bless.

 

[jonfawkes]

+JMJ+

Jonfawkes, you sound like the person G.K. Chesterton was talking about in this section of Orthodoxy (with my emphases):

About the same time I read a solemn flippancy by some free thinker: he said that a suicide was only the same as a martyr. The open fallacy of this helped to clear the question. Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr.** A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life.** A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end. In other words, the martyr is noble, exactly because (however he renounces the world or execrates all humanity) he confesses this ultimate link with life; he sets his heart outside himself: he dies that something may live. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being: he is a mere destroyer; spiritually, he destroys the universe. And then I remembered the stake and the cross-roads, and the queer fact that Christianity had shown this weird harshness to the suicide. For Christianity had shown a wild encouragement of the martyr. Historic Christianity was accused, not entirely without reason, of carrying martyrdom and asceticism to a point, desolate and pessimistic. The early Christian martyrs talked of death with a horrible happiness. They blasphemed the beautiful duties of the body: they smelt the grave afar off like a field of flowers. All this has seemed to many the very poetry of pessimism. Yet there is the stake at the crossroads to show what Christianity thought of the pessimist.

So, to make an example, in this quote of yours:

The incident is not a case of attempted suicide, because the pilot does not want to die, but he wants others to live.

God bless.

I never said that the motivation was the same only the act of killing one’s self. Just as there are justifiable homicides their are justifiable suicides. It’s semantics.

Two men in separate locations - one jumps on a grenade, the other jumps on a grenade. At that level it is the same act. They have killed themselves. Su = self, icide = killing. Self killing.

One did it to save his comrades. The other to escape misery. The first is to be praised, the second condemned. One is an act of self sacrifice, the other a cowardly act of escape. But…, the fact is, they both killed themselves. Suicide.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I never said that the motivation was the same only the act of killing one’s self. Just as there are justifiable homicides their are justifiable suicides. It’s semantics.

Two men in separate locations - one jumps on a grenade, the other jumps on a grenade. At that level it is the same act. They have killed themselves. Su = self, icide = killing. Self killing.

One did it to save his comrades. The other to escape misery. The first is to be praised, the second condemned. One is an act of self sacrifice, the other a cowardly act of escape. But…, the fact is, they both killed themselves. Suicide.

I think the problem is you seem to put the cart before the horse, Jonfawkes. You seem to always put the end before the beginning of the act…should it be like that?

Here is what I mean: The one who jumps on a grenade to save his comrades’ lives, was he thinking of dying? It was NOT his intention to die; it was his intention to SAVE his comrades’ lives! Therefore, he did not KILL himself, he SAVED his friends. That’s why he was not a suicide. On the other hand, the one who jumped on a grenade to end his misery: was there any other reason for ending his life ASIDE from ending his life of misery? NO! That’s why he is a suicide.

The thing is, you cannot “unintentionally” or “accidentally” commit suicide; suicide must be the intention of the person for it to be a suicide. Without that intention, it is NOT a suicide.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

dictionary.reference.com

su·i·cide /ˈsuəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled [soo-uh-sahyd] Show IPA noun, verb, -cid·ed, -cid·ing.
–noun
1.
the intentional taking of one’s own life.

God bless.

 

[dskysmine]

Daniel:
It would also be minimally decent of you if you would either actually defend your accusation that I have been lying in this thread, or withdraw that accusation and apologize. The ball’s in your court…

You said I didn’t make questions when I did. The fact that you didn’t like the questions because you wanted to make a point doesn’t make it less true.

 

[dskysmine]

Getting ridiculous? LOL! It has been ridiculous since your first intervention. You’re right: you’re not going to argue point for point. You’re just going to stick to the same old MO: beg the question, ignore everything I say, pretend I said stuff I didn’t, and pretend you have Jesus on your side, so I must be wrong, poor ignorant me! That is ridiculous. At least you’ve got that right.

I didn’t pretend anything. I quoted the Bible. You haven’t and you still haven’t proved me wrong when doing so.

LOL! Did I say that, Daniel? Please have the very minimal decency and honesty to either tell me where, or to apologize for making up foolish nonsense.

You didn’t say it literally… but you implied it when you defended the Catechism…

Maybe your English isn’t so good, but let me assure you: that is complete nonsense. Bad deeds are unjustifiable; if they were justifiable, they wouldn’t be bad deeds.

Who is the native english speaker here?
Justifiable = excusable! You don’t apologise for doing good… you ask for excuses for doing BAD things!

I’ve made my case. You have received it in a very pigheaded fashion. I can’t do much about that. It’s on you now: you have to choose to get your ego under control and to be reasonable and open-minded. May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Where have you made your case? I don’t see a single post of yours saying anything resembling an argument of why “morality is subjective” or “morality is objective”. You seem to think it’s so obvious that what is good is good that you don’t even care why people discuss about it. If you don’t want to present an argument at least explain why…

I have been as obstinate as you… and I don’t like the word pigheaded. I guess you are more used to calling “pig” to other people.

I honestly keep praying for you, I don’t know what else I can do at the moment.

Best wishes,
Daniel

 

[jonfawkes]

+JMJ+

I think the problem is you seem to put the cart before the horse, Jonfawkes. You seem to always put the end before the beginning of the act…should it be like that?

Here is what I mean: The one who jumps on a grenade to save his comrades’ lives, was he thinking of dying? It was NOT his intention to die; it was his intention to SAVE his comrades’ lives! Therefore, he did not KILL himself, he SAVED his friends. That’s why he was not a suicide. On the other hand, the one who jumped on a grenade to end his misery: was there any other reason for ending his life ASIDE from ending his life of misery? NO! That’s why he is a suicide.

The thing is, you cannot “unintentionally” or “accidentally” commit suicide; suicide must be the intention of the person for it to be a suicide. Without that intention, it is NOT a suicide.

God bless.

Both cases they are jumping on the grenade, they have equal chances of killing themselves - intentionally. Neither has the delusion that they will live. One is killing himself for altruistic reasons, one for selfish ones. The altruistic one doesn’t think that he will be saved because he has good intentions. He is intentionally taking his own life to save others. He didn’t accidentally fall on the grenade, he did it intentionally to save his friends.

Here’s the definition I’ve been referencing from Merrium Webster it also uses intentionally.

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