Morality? What morality?

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

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.

The problem with your assertion is that in one instance one does not care if he himself is killed so long as the others are saved, and in the other one cares that he is killed. One’s main intention is to save others, the other’s is to kill himself. To make it more clear: One does not want to die, the other wants to die. It is that main desire, that main intention, that makes all the difference.

But anyways thank you, your definition also supports this view.

God bless.

 

[jonfawkes]

+JMJ+

The problem with your assertion is that in one instance one does not care if he himself is killed so long as the others are saved, and in the other one cares that he is killed. One’s main intention is to save others, the other’s is to kill himself. To make it more clear: One does not want to die, the other wants to die. It is that main desire, that main intention, that makes all the difference.

But anyways thank you, your definition also supports this view.

God bless.

Regardless of what they want - they both kill themselves. I’m sure both would like a different solution to the situation they find themselves in. The fact remains that killing yourself is called suicide.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Regardless of what they want - they both kill themselves.

What they want, what they intend, IS the thing that changes everything, Jonfawkes! Since one intends to save others, it is NOT a suicide, by the same definition you gave me. Since the other intends to kill himself, it IS a suicide.

You have undermined yourself, you have just acknowledged my position. Because you see, if you disregard what the person wants in this case, then you have just disregarded your own definition of suicide. Thank you.

God bless.

 

[dskysmine]

Regardless of what they want - they both kill themselves. I’m sure both would like a different solution to the situation they find themselves in. The fact remains that killing yourself is called suicide.

Do you call suicide when a fireman enters a burning house to save someone inside? No… He doesn’t want to kill himself, he is undergoing a grave risk to his health and to his life to save the life of others, just like the engineers in Japan. If you are not actively participant in the choice of death you don’t call it suicide. The choice you made was to help others, not to die, you dying is a consequence of the good you chose to do. In suicide there is no “good”. You actively choose to put an end to someone’s life (yours) and you actively participate in the procedure to achieve that goal.

 

[jonfawkes]

+JMJ+

What they want, what they intend, IS the thing that changes everything, Jonfawkes! Since one intends to save others, it is NOT a suicide, by the same definition you gave me. Since the other intends to kill himself, it IS a suicide.

You have undermined yourself, you have just acknowledged my position. Because you see, if you disregard what the person wants in this case, then you have just disregarded your own definition of suicide. Thank you.

God bless.

No, what they intend is to solve the problem that they are faced with. The solution is their death. They kill themselves as a solution. One solution is altruistic, it helps others, one is selfish and only helps themselves. The intention is the same “solve the problem”

 

[jonfawkes]

Do you call suicide when a fireman enters a burning house to save someone inside? No… He doesn’t want to kill himself, he is undergoing a grave risk to his health and to his life to save the life of others, just like the engineers in Japan. If you are not actively participant in the choice of death you don’t call it suicide. The choice you made was to help others, not to die, you dying is a consequence of the good you chose to do. In suicide there is no “good”. You actively choose to put an end to someone’s life (yours) and you actively participate in the procedure to achieve that goal.

The fireman is not guaranteed death. He is taking a risk, a very serious, noble and laudable risk but he’s not killing himself.

The engineers - I’m not a physician but it sounds like there is no room for survival. They are laying down their lives, killing themselves so others can live, also very noble and laudable, but it is suicide. Killing one’s self.

 

[dskysmine]

No, what they intend is to solve the problem that they are faced with. The solution is their death. They kill themselves as a solution. One solution is altruistic, it helps others, one is selfish and only helps themselves. The intention is the same “solve the problem”

The guy who jumps on the grenade to save his comrades doesn’t “hope” to die, even if he is 100% sure of his death he may still live, which is why either the outcome, he living or him dying are both good. The guy who does it to “end his misery” “hopes” to die, if he doesn’t die he will be let down. If you put your hope in God everything is possible and everything can be good, even surviving a grenade explosion.

 

[Spock]

No, what they intend is to solve the problem that they are faced with. The solution is their death. They kill themselves as a solution. One solution is altruistic, it helps others, one is selfish and only helps themselves. The intention is the same “solve the problem”

Don’t be so darn rational. Rationality does not impress your opponents. Of course they both face a problem and wish to solve that problem. Of course they both wish that there would be a different solution, one which does not involve their death. Of course they both realize that there is no other solution. So they both execute the one and only solution to solve the problem they face.

 

[jonfawkes]

The guy who jumps on the grenade to save his comrades doesn’t “hope” to die, even if he is 100% sure of his death he may still live, which is why either the outcome, he living or him dying are both good. The guy who does it to “end his misery” “hopes” to die, if he doesn’t die he will be let down. If you put your hope in God everything is possible and everything can be good, even surviving a grenade explosion.

Sigh - The probability for the chance of survival and death are the same for both men. They are doing the same thing - jumping on a grenade. One’s chances of survival don’t increase if you are doing it for a good cause.

 

[jonfawkes]

Don’t be so darn rational. Rationality does not impress your opponents. Of course they both face a problem and wish to solve that problem. Of course they both wish that there would be a different solution, one which does not involve their death. Of course they both realize that there is no other solution. So they both execute the one and only solution to solve the problem they face.

:thumbsup:

 

[sidbrown]

It’s obvious that the discussion on suicide is going to depend on how you define the term “suicide.” There are two definitions which are going to lead to two different ways of thinking about the morality of the action. One definition involves taking an action which results in your own death. The second defintion involves not only taking such an action but having the intention of killing yourself. For example, if you commit an action for the good purpose of saving others, but it unavoidably results in your own death, it would not be suicide under the second definition but it would be under the first.

 

[Curious_Seed]

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”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

For atheists, morality is what each says it is.

For theists, morality is what God says it is.

 

[sidbrown]

For atheists, morality is what each says it is.

For theists, morality is what God says it is.

For a theist, who decides what God has said with reference to various questions such as the use of the atomic bomb, or torture to extract confessions, or whether slavery is permitted in certain circumstances, or whether it is justified to burn a heretic alive at the stake? Also how would a theist determine what God has said about not allowing divorce under any circumstances, but giving out marriage annulments for the most trivial of reasons and things which come up in any marriage, so that in the real world, anyone can get a marriage annulment, but at the same time divorce is absolutely forbidden?

 

[Ismael]

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”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

I think there is a big difference between ‘righous freedom fighter’ (like the partisans fighting against Nazi regimes) and ‘terrorist’… and such distinction depends not whether you agree with them or not, but on how they operate.

The latter strikes often not at military targets but at civilian targets to instil fear and terror into the population.

A rightous freedom fighter will use ‘unconventional warfare’ (like guerilla tactics) but his objective is to bring down an opressive and evil government (or invader).

Of course when we speak of real-life ‘freedom fighters’, often these also apply sometimes ‘terror tactics’, but that would also be morally unjustifiable, as the end does not justify the means.

A righteous freedom fighter might end his life fighting an oppressive regime, but he will not simply ‘suicide bomb’ himself towards a civilian target killing innocent people who are not (directly) involved in the struggle.

Someone who voluntarely kills innocent people is not rightous, no matter whether his ideals or struggle truly are righteous or not…

In the same way a government can be a “terrorist” as well (the nazi government as a blunt example… but also some ‘western countries’ “civilized” governments’ have committed several questionable acts in the last 50 years…)

=========

There is also a HUGE difference between suicide (being it cutting your wrists or strapping TNT into your belt) and “giving your life for others (or an ideal)”

In the first case one deliberately kills himself, in the second case, he does not wish to die, but he’s prepared to do so to help others or uphold his ideals.

Martyrs (at least Christian martyrs) did not wish to be killed, but they would have rather suffer torture and death rather than give up their ideals. Thats’s something quite different than killing yourself and bring others down with you…

 

[Betterave]

It’s obvious that the discussion on suicide is going to depend on how you define the term “suicide.” There are two definitions which are going to lead to two different ways of thinking about the morality of the action. One definition involves taking an action which results in your own death. The second defintion involves not only taking such an action but having the intention of killing yourself. For example, if you commit an action for the good purpose of saving others, but it unavoidably results in your own death, it would not be suicide under the second definition but it would be under the first.

Right. And the first definition is nonsensical where we are speaking of committing suicide. When someone says, “Jesus committed suicide,” this should be a shockingly silly statement for any Catholic. Of course he didn’t commit suicide. To commit an act implies that that act is morally evil. That is the obvious context for a moral discussion of suicide, where we are explaining why suicide, as such, is evil, as the Catechism says.

Jon, however, just loves to muddy the waters by using ‘suicide’ as a morally neutral term (although he also slips in the Catechism definition occasionally, as if to pretend that he is not in disagreement with the Church?? - even though he plainly is). So let me ask you: Do you see any justification for having a discussion in a Catholic context and claiming that ‘suicide’ applies to anybody whose action results in their own death? If so, what?? Or do you agree that that is pure obfuscation?

Let me add that nobody actually talks about suicide in a morally neutral way, and making the assumption that they do based on a simplistic reading of the dictionary definition is silly. There is involuntary manslaughter - considered a form of homicide - where there is no mens rea, no intent to kill, but no one talks about a drunk driver who crashes and kills himself as a ‘suicide.’ He is guilty of recklessly endangering his own life; but in the absence of an intent to kill himself we (Catholic or not) do not call him a ‘suicide.’

 

[Betterave]

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

You’re so full of it! You pretended that I have argued for an objective morality using only the expression, and I quote, “The Church says so.” So you are the one who is lying, yes?

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

Right, I didn’t say it literally, i.e., I didn’t use that expression, as you claimed I did. I also did not imply it. If you want to claim I did, say where, and actually quote me (no more dishonesty from you, Daniel, please - I’m getting very tired of it).

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

Doh! Daniel, trust me: I am the native English speaker, and I am an exceptionally competent one. (I got a perfect score on the language section of my grad school entrance exam, so stop being so presumptuous and arrogant.) Excusable means “can be excused”; it does not mean “must make excuses.” Likewise, ‘justifiable’ means “can be justified”; not “must make up (spurious) justifications.”

I have to ask you: are you interested in learning here? I’m really getting disgusted with your presumption that you are right, even when you are obviously wrong and don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

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…

Please go back to page 14 and read from there, if you really want to know.

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.

NO, you have been obstinate; I have not. I have constantly tried to reason with you. And ‘pigheaded’ does not mean ‘pig’ - please look up words that you may not understand.

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

Best wishes,
Daniel

I’ll tell you what you can do for me Daniel: What I said before. Drop the ego, drop the presumption that you’re right, be open to correction based on the assumption that you might be wrong. Don’t summarize my views inaccurately. Look up the following terms and do your utmost to avoid these fallacious argument forms: ignoratio elenchi, straw man, begging the question. Strive for humility in everything you write. That’s what you can do for me, and that’s what you can do for Jesus. Peace, brother.

[And please, my brother, seriously consider the possibility that our Lord is not pleased by your pharisaical prayers.]

 

[Betterave]

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.

You just ignored what I said again.
Please note: Lying does not consist simply in saying something that is untrue. And: when there are a few exceptions to a general statement, that does not make that general statement untrue. So again:

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…

 

[jonfawkes]

Let me add that nobody actually talks about suicide in a morally neutral way, and making the assumption that they do based on a simplistic reading of the dictionary definition is silly. There is involuntary manslaughter - considered a form of homicide - where there is no mens rea, no intent to kill, but no one talks about a drunk driver who crashes and kills himself as a ‘suicide.’ He is guilty of recklessly endangering his own life; but in the absence of an intent to kill himself we (Catholic or not) do not call him a ‘suicide.’

We’ve discussed that suicide is an intentional act, not an accidental one. Please keep up.

 

[tonyrey]

To return to the topic:

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words.

Morality is based on the fact that life is objectively valuable in being a source of opportunities for development, enjoyment and fulfilment. Disagreement does not imply that all moral judgments are subjective and meaningless. If it did, scientific theories would also be subjective and meaningless.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7528753
​

 

[david_friol_1]

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”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

mor·al   /ˈmɔrəl, ˈmɒr-/ Show Spelled
[mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA

–adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.

Just wanted to lay out the definition of “moral” when used as an adjective because while opinions may vary I think it is important to seek out what is true in a give situation. So in your scenario while the subjective views of the individual people may be opposed we do not have enough info. to judge whether it was objectively good/evil