Morally, is life better than not sinning and is sin better than death?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
I’m just wondering because there are some times when you’re faced with the question “should I sacrifice my health to not sin?”. If the answer is yes then there are situations where you might die to avoid sin -seems reasonable but I considered is it better for a whole society to die than to live in sin? If the answer was yes to the first question than it is logically probable that the answer is yes to the last question -which really raises the question of why anyone but the sinless (who don’t exist except by divine dispensation) should exist. If the answer is no, then that solves the social question but it also brings up the problem of saying that sinning is better than martyrdom which seems obviously wrong.

Any help?
 
fakename said:
I’m just wondering because there are some times when you’re faced with the question “should I sacrifice my health to not sin?”. If the answer is yes then there are situations where you might die to avoid sin -seems reasonable but I considered is it better for a whole society to die than to live in sin? If the answer was yes to the first question than it is logically probable that the answer is yes to the last question -which really raises the question of why anyone but the sinless (who don’t exist except by divine dispensation) should exist. If the answer is no, then that solves the social question but it also brings up the problem of saying that sinning is better than martyrdom which seems obviously wrong.

Any help?
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any sin that preserves health or social well-being, so your questions don’t seem to be logical.

Please clarify.
 
a sin that preserves wealth and health would be, pornography because pornographic movies generate income to a distributor and that distributor pays rent to a strip mall. The strip mall can then lower its rent to allow a pharmacy to rent out one of that mall’s other vacant lots. So it would seem, there is a sin that both promotes health and wealth. But virtue would in this case, drive rents up and eject the video store.
 
fakename said:
a sin that preserves wealth and health would be, pornography because pornographic movies generate income to a distributor and that distributor pays rent to a strip mall. The strip mall can then lower its rent to allow a pharmacy to rent out one of that mall’s other vacant lots. So it would seem, there is a sin that both promotes health and wealth. But virtue would in this case, drive rents up and eject the video store.
Click to expand...
There is no virtue in any preceived good generated from sin. So there really is no good in your scenario above.

Why did you add wealth to the equation - it wasn’t contained in the original scenario?

An non-sinful venture would result in the same increase in sales and lower rents, so you also have presented a false dicotomy.

Edit: Have you heard the phase “the ends don’t justify the means”? That is what you are proposing. It is immoral to use immoral means to accomplish a good desired result.
 
Here are some basics of Catholic Morality from the Catechism of the Church.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
- One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
  • the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
  • charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”
As you can clearly see, the third point above totally blows away your idea of pornography.

Now with this in mind let me ask David’s question, I am not aware of any sin that preserves health or social well-being, so your questions don’t seem to be logical.

Please clarify.
 
“Why did you add wealth to the equation - it wasn’t contained in the original scenario?”

Sorry, wealth is my other word for social well-being in that it funds social well-being.

“An non-sinful venture would result in the same increase in sales and lower rents, so you also have presented a false dicotomy.”

That’s true in logic but not in experience -there are times when people will buy bad videos before good ones since if there weren’t then how could it be true that people would do bad things for profit? If good things now actually did have the same return as bad, then society would now or at some point soon probably be in a 50/50 division between good and bad business w/o any gains either way.

But if you think that there was no moral good in my scenario, then you would have to answer the question, “should a whole society that sins be allowed to exist?” since if moral good really is absent when people profit from evil, then people should not profit from evil, but profits are funds for society, so society must not be allowed to continue.
 
fakename said:
“Why did you add wealth to the equation - it wasn’t contained in the original scenario?”

Sorry, wealth is my other word for social well-being in that it funds social well-being.

“An non-sinful venture would result in the same increase in sales and lower rents, so you also have presented a false dicotomy.”

That’s true in logic but not in experience -there are times when people will buy bad videos before good ones since if there weren’t then how could it be true that people would do bad things for profit? If good things now actually did have the same return as bad, then society would now or at some point soon probably be in a 50/50 division between good and bad business w/o any gains either way.
Click to expand...
See post #5.
You have no case.
 
“See post #5.
You have no case.”

That may be with the question of the false dichotomy but the I would still like an opinion on this question -

But if you think that there was no moral good in my scenario, then you would have to answer the question, “should a whole society that sins be allowed to exist?” since if moral good really is absent when people profit from evil, then people should not profit from evil, but profits are funds for society, so society must not be allowed to continue.

please.
 
35* For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? 37 For what can a man give in return for his life?
Click to expand...
Mark 8:35-36
 
fakename said:
“See post #5.
You have no case.”

That may be with the question of the false dichotomy but the I would still like an opinion on this question -

But if you think that there was no moral good in my scenario, then you would have to answer the question, “should a whole society that sins be allowed to exist?” since if moral good really is absent when people profit from evil, then people should not profit from evil, but profits are funds for society, so society must not be allowed to continue.

please.
Click to expand...
You have another false idea here. Society does not sin, individuals sin.
 
“Mark 8:35-36”

Well that is a pretty radical answer, does that mean that no society should exist since everyone will sin at least venially?
 
Everything will come to an end at the Second Coming of Christ, so the answer would be yes.

As a side note, please use the quote feature here at the forum rather than putting quotation marks and retyping the quote.

In large threads it can be hard to follow who you are responding to.
 
St. Dominic Savio – the first child to be canonized on the basis of his heroic virtue (all other child saints up to that point were martyrs) – had as his motto: “Death before sin.” In other words, he would rather die than offend God. This is the result of loving God above all else.

Sin is not a mere infraction against the rules. To sin is to offend the infinitely good and loving God. The saints run from sin as from a plague. This is because, indeed, it is a plague: a plague that kills the soul. Sin leads to death, and not merely the death of our bodies, whose demise we can by no means escape in the end. It is the one thing that can separate us from God forever. When we are forced with a choice between saving our hides and saving our souls, we must choose to save our souls. That is why it is so important to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, which gives us the strength to do so.

As I have trumpeted repeatedly in another thread: you cannot do evil in order to achieve good. When you find yourself faced with the alternative between offending God and losing some desired good, that is the time humbly to acknowledge that you have reached the end of your finite human resources, and to trust in God for the rest.
 
But if the whole world sins, and it’s better to die than to sin, and if some things are sins and are necessary to live, then at least some people should die. But this conclusion seems to be too ascetic to be true. I mean if things like paintings or unveiled faces are not to reprobated absolutely, then surely the whole of society ought not to be. There must be some middle ground.
 
fakename said:
But if the whole world sins, and it’s better to die than to sin, and if some things are sins and are necessary to live, then at least some people should die. But this conclusion seems to be too ascetic to be true. I mean if things like paintings or unveiled faces are not to reprobated absolutely, then surely the whole of society ought not to be. There must be some middle ground.
Click to expand...
A couple of points you seem to not understand.

The “world” does not sin, “society” does not sin. People sin. Society is not guilty of an individuals sins.

Venial sin does not destroy our relationship with God, only mortal sin does so. Venial sins are forgive at the penitential rite of the Mass. Mortal sins are forgiven within the Sacrament of Penance.

So even if we (that is people) sin, we can be forgiven for it.

Last point, no sins “are necessary to live”. I do not know where you are getting this from but it is way off.

You show a very basic misunderstanding of Catholic Moral Teaching. I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you read through it.
 
fakename said:
But if the whole world sins, and it’s better to die than to sin, and if some things are sins and are necessary to live, then at least some people should die. But this conclusion seems to be too ascetic to be true. I mean if things like paintings or unveiled faces are not to reprobated absolutely, then surely the whole of society ought not to be. There must be some middle ground.
Click to expand...
What sin is necessary to live?

I’m detecting here a mentality steeped in materialism, and utterly oblivious to the supernatural.
 
ByzCath said:
A couple of points you seem to not understand.

The “world” does not sin, “society” does not sin. People sin. Society is not guilty of an individuals sins.

Last point, no sins “are necessary to live”. I do not know where you are getting this from but it is way off.
Click to expand...
I stated earlier that individuals sin, and all of society is a bunch of individuals.

a sin that are necessary to live, would be pornography because pornographic movies generate income to a distributor and that distributor pays rent to a strip mall. The strip mall can then lower its rent to allow a pharmacy (or market or some such thing) to rent out one of that mall’s other vacant lots. One day, someone is in dire need of medication so he goes to the pharmacy. So it would seem,that the presence of porn funds the health of the people and without such a sin, it may not be possible to cure people in the short term. But virtue would in this case, drive rents up and eject the video store and pharmacy. So society suffers if something is done in this case? Also, it is true that a good business could take the place of the bad video store, but at least before that happens the rent does have to rise and there has to be a decline in quality in life.
 
fakename said:
a sin that are necessary to live, would be pornography because pornographic movies generate income to a distributor and that distributor pays rent to a strip mall. The strip mall can then lower its rent to allow a pharmacy (or market or some such thing) to rent out one of that mall’s other vacant lots. One day, someone is in dire need of medication so he goes to the pharmacy. So it would seem,that the presence of porn funds the health of the people and without such a sin, it may not be possible to cure people in the short term. But virtue would in this case, drive rents up and eject the video store and pharmacy. So society suffers if something is done in this case? Also, it is true that a good business could take the place of the bad video store, but at least before that happens the rent does have to rise and there has to be a decline in quality in life.
Click to expand...
:confused: :whacky: :hmmm: :hypno: 🤷 :dts:

What more needs to be said to refute your argument? This is virtually self-refuting!

If you have to do that kind of mental gymnastics to come up with an (utterly implausible) example of a sin that is necessary to life, then you damage your position even more than if you had said nothing at all.
 
Victorious said:
:confused: :whacky: :hmmm: :hypno: 🤷 :dts:

What more needs to be said to refute your argument? This is virtually self-refuting!

If you have to do that kind of mental gymnastics to come up with an (utterly implausible) example of a sin that is necessary to life, then you damage your position even more than if you had said nothing at all.
Click to expand...
Why is it implausible? Anyways, if it’s not impossible one should be prepared with contingencies.

But most important why is it implausible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top