Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[PRmerger]

So Roman Catholics do not agree as to whether or not murder is intrinsically wrong?
Some say it is OK to murder Hitler, others say no.

Is morality a matter of opinion, and not an absolute? According to Roman Catholic teaching, would it have been morally right or morally wrong to have murdered Hitler?

Before we go any further, would you answer my question as to who it is you think was responsible for burning Joan of Arc at the stake?

And please cite your source.

Thanks.

 

[Tomdstone]

Before we go any further, would you answer my question as to who it is you think was responsible for burning Joan of Arc at the stake?

And please cite your source.

Thanks.

Roman Catholic bishop Pierre Cauchon organized the trial and arranged for her execution. She was burned alive at the stake.

See: The Trial of Condemnation, in “Joan of Arc, By Herself and Her Witnesses” by Régine Pernoud,

 

[PRmerger]

Roman Catholic bishop Pierre Cauchon orgainzed the trial and arranged for her execution. She was burned alive at the stake.

See: The Trial of Condemnation, in “Joan of Arc, By Herself and Her Witnesses” by Régine Pernoud,

Again, you seem to be confusing Catholics with “the Catholic Church”.

Now, 'tis true, of course, that in one context the CC consists of Catholics–theologians (like Aquinas), bishops (like Cauchon), laymen and women (like me).

However, in this context, where the discussion lies in the position: the CC once sanctioned burning heretics at the stake…it is required that you offer evidence for the CC doing so. As in: the magisterium.

Not bad men in the CC.

This is what I found regarding who burned St. Joan:

The English burned her at the stake on 30 May 1431.

 

[Tomdstone]

Again, you seem to be confusing Catholics with “the Catholic Church”.

Now, 'tis true, of course, that in one context the CC consists of Catholics–theologians (like Aquinas), bishops (like Cauchon), laymen and women (like me).

However, in this context, where the discussion lies in the position: the CC once sanctioned burning heretics at the stake…it is required that you offer evidence for the CC doing so. As in: the magisterium.

Not bad men in the CC.

This is what I found regarding who burned St. Joan:

The English burned her at the stake on 30 May 1431.

I said that I don’t see anyone in the Roman Catholic Church who spoke out against burning a heretic at the stake. Exsurge Domine also gave it green light. The papal encyclical condemned the red light.
Further. recently In a letter to the President of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty, Pope Francis expressed the Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty, calling it “inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed.” He continued, "It is an offence against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person, which contradicts God’s plan for man and society, and his merciful justice, and impedes the penalty from fulfilling any just objective.
He also called for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty, saying the commandment “You shall not kill” was absolute and equally valid for the guilty as for the innocent.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So Roman Catholics do not agree as to whether or not murder is intrinsically wrong?
Some say it is OK to murder Hitler, others say no.

Is morality a matter of opinion, and not an absolute? According to Roman Catholic teaching, would it have been morally right or morally wrong to have murdered Hitler?

You didn’t read my definition of murder:

*The premeditated and unjustified killing of an innocent human being. *

If you want to define the assassination of Hitler as murder, then you may as well call all of the following "murder:”

1. killing enemies in war,
2. stopping a killer by pre-emptively killing them in self-defense or in the defense of another, and
3. capital punishment of a guilty beyond doubt murderer

I mean if “intention” is your only criteria, then all of the above are “murder.”

You forgot that I also wrote "unjustified and intentional killing of an innocent human being – I.e., one who does NOT deserve to die under principles of justice.

Killing Hitler, enemies in war, for self defense and for capital crimes would be called “justifiable homicide,” not murder.

 

[Tomdstone]

You didn’t read my definition of murder:

*The premeditated and unjustified killing of an innocent human being. *

If you want to define the assassination of Hitler as murder, then you may as well call all of the following "murder:”

1. killing enemies in war,
2. stopping a killer by pre-emptively killing them in self-defense or in the defense of another, and
3. capital punishment of a guilty beyond doubt murderer

I mean if “intention” is your only criteria, then all of the above are “murder.”

You forgot that I also wrote "unjustified and intentional killing of an innocent human being – I.e., one who does NOT deserve to die under principles of justice.

Killing Hitler, enemies in war, for self defense and for capital crimes would be called “justifiable homicide,” not murder.

What is and what is not justified is a prudential matter. In many cases it is fuzzy and you will have Catholics arguing on both sides. For example, Pope Francis has recently said that the commandment “You shall not kill” was absolute and equally valid for the guilty as for the innocent.

 

[Solmyr]

Again, you seem to be confusing Catholics with “the Catholic Church”.

You are trying to separate the church from its members.

However, in this context, where the discussion lies in the position: the CC once sanctioned burning heretics at the stake…it is required that you offer evidence for the CC doing so. As in: the magisterium.

The magisterium is just a CONCEPT (the teaching authority of the church), not an entity. “IT” cannot speak for or against anything. It was the members who sanctioned the burning of the heretics. Therefore it was the church what condoned it.

Not bad men in the CC.

Whatever people say or do as members of the church, it reflects back on the organization itself. It is ridiculous to say that the members were wrong, but the organization is right.

 

[Tomdstone]

You didn’t read my definition of murder:

*The premeditated and unjustified killing of an innocent human being. *.

I didn’t see this definition. What I saw was:

A political radical who out of a sense of what is “right” for his country or society murders his opponents might be doing so in good conscience but will still be judged for committing an immoral act.

 

[Tomdstone]

You forgot that I also wrote "unjustified and intentional killing of an innocent human being – I.e., one who does NOT deserve to die under principles of justice.

Killing Hitler, enemies in war, for self defense and for capital crimes would be called “justifiable homicide,” not murder.

Well, justifiable homicide is what the Serbs called it when Gavrilo Princep assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. The Archduke was an advocate of increased federalism which amounted to the annexation of these south Slavic lands by Austria Hungary and subjecting them to his tyrannical rule. According to their reasoning the assassination was a justifiable killing of an enemy in war.
What all this amounts to is that there really is no absolute morality which is agreed to by everyone. Some say a certain assassination is justified by the moral law, others will argue against it.

 

[PRmerger]

I said that I don’t see anyone in the Roman Catholic Church who spoke out against burning a heretic at the stake

Well, now you’re changing the goalposts a bit.

It’s different to assert: “the CC commanded the burning of heretics”.

from: “no one in the CC spoke out against it”.

If you’re now asserting the latter…ok.

Not sure how that moves our dialogue forward?

 

[Tomdstone]

It’s different to assert: “the CC commanded the burning of heretics”.

Where did you get that quote from? Are you quoting someone on this thread? Or are you just making things up? commanded and approved are two different words meaning different things. I quoted the papal bull Exsurge Domine which condemned the thesis:
. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
IOW, it is not true that it is against the will of God that heretics be burned. I don’t see anywhere in the encyclical where it shows any disapproval of burning heretics at the stake. Where did any pope ever condemn burning of heretics at the stake, even when it was occurring frequently? Today, on the contrary we see and hear Pope Francis saying that the death penalty is “inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed.”

 

[Tomdstone]

You are correct.

As you are here.

Is this…good, or bad?

If you claim it is bad, (which I think you would) then you have to have some objective source to which you are comparing this decision.

And therefore…QED.

#objectivemoralityexists

Is it objectively good or bad to assassinate a tyrant? Take the two examples of Hitler and of Archduke Ferdinand. Catholics plotted to kill Hitler, but they did not succeed. A Serbian boy assassinated the Archduke since he and his Black Hand movement believed that they were at war with the Austrians who ruled tyrannically over the south slavic countries.

 

[PRmerger]

Is it objectively good or bad to assassinate a tyrant? Take the two examples of Hitler and of Archduke Ferdinand. Catholics plotted to kill Hitler, but they did not succeed. A Serbian boy assassinated the Archduke since he and his Black Hand movement believed that they were at war with the Austrians who ruled tyrannically over the south slavic countries.

Ummm…not sure why this is a question?

It should be quite obvious: it is objectively BAD to assassinate anyone–a tyrant, an okra farmer, a stripper, a standup comedian…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, justifiable homicide is what the Serbs called it when Gavrilo Princep assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. The Archduke was an advocate of increased federalism which amounted to the annexation of these south Slavic lands by Austria Hungary and subjecting them to his tyrannical rule. According to their reasoning the assassination was a justifiable killing of an enemy in war.
What all this amounts to is that there really is no absolute morality which is agreed to by everyone. Some say a certain assassination is justified by the moral law, others will argue against it.

Well, no, it doesn’t amount to “there really is no absolute morality” unless you are looking for a cheap clause to catapult you to that conclusion.

What it amounts to is, “Assassination of some tyrannical despots might be justified, just as the capital punishment of some sadistic murderers might be justified.” The issue then takes us to a discussion of, “Under what conditions might a particular assassination be justified?” An admission that assassination might be justified does not amount to a carte blanche allowance of any and all assassinations or attempts.

What it does demonstrate is that there might be conditions under which assassination as a moral act might be justified. The next logical step would be to consider what those conditions might be and whether those conditions might justify the attempt on Hitler or the assassination of the Archduke.

Merely admitting that assassination could be morally justified does NOT entail that EVERY attempt or actual assassination EVER undertaken have, thereby, been justified.

It appears that your understanding of ethics, the underlying principles of moral systems and how moral rules are determined (and possibly changed,) are all very tenuous. This is clear from the fact that you don’t seem to understand that capital punishment may be justified at some times and in some places, but not in others. Capital punishment is something like a moral rule, it is not an underlying moral principle.

Why would you suppose it is okay to drive 100 kph on some roads and not on others? Posted speed limits are traffic rules that are determined based upon principles of safety and traffic flow. Rules are not right in themselves, they are made “right” by appeal to the underlying principles. Likewise, there are underlying and never-changing principles of morality which support some practical moral rules at some times and others at other times. The rules may change depending upon circumstances, but the principles do not.

 

[Tomdstone]

LOL!

I am sorry, but a homily said, even by a pope, is not to be construed as “the Catholic Church teaches”.

So the pope is out of step with what the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

 

[Tomdstone]

It should be quite obvious: it is objectively BAD to assassinate anyone–a tyrant, an okra farmer, a stripper, a standup comedian…

Not so obvious to many Roman Catholics who claim that it would have been morally justified to assassinate Hitler:

Killing Hitler, enemies in war, for self defense and for capital crimes would be called “justifiable homicide,” not murder.

I have read that Dietrich Bonhoeffer studied Catholic thinking on tyrannicide in formulating his own ethic and conspiracy to depose Hitler. Bonhoeffer was martyred before his plan could be effected. Others, close to Hitler, were able to act but failed to kill the tyrant.

“Lieutenant Colonel Klaus von Stauffenberg, described as ‘a serious Catholic,’ formed a plot to assassinate Hitler on July 20. He and other members, including Field Marshal Rommel, Field Marshal von Witzleben, and General Beck, knew that Hitler had to be removed from power, and recognized that no regular means of government existed to do so. The only course of action seemed to be justifiable tyrannicide. Von Stauffenberg reportedly met with Cardinal Count Preysing of Berlin to discuss this matter, and his eminence honored the motives and offered no theological objection to restrain him. In so doing, Cardinal Preysing placed his own life in jeopardy with the Gestapo, but was never implicated in the plot.”
catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/does-the-church-condone-tyrannicide.html

 

[Tomdstone]

Well, no, it doesn’t amount to “there really is no absolute morality” unless you are looking for a cheap clause to catapult you to that conclusion.

What it amounts to is, “Assassination of some tyrannical despots might be justified, just as the capital punishment of some sadistic murderers might be justified.” The issue then takes us to a discussion of, “Under what conditions might a particular assassination be justified?” An admission that assassination might be justified does not amount to a carte blanche allowance of any and all assassinations or attempts.

What it does demonstrate is that there might be conditions under which assassination as a moral act might be justified. The next logical step would be to consider what those conditions might be and whether those conditions might justify the attempt on Hitler or the assassination of the Archduke.

Merely admitting that assassination could be morally justified does NOT entail that EVERY attempt or actual assassination EVER undertaken have, thereby, been justified.

It appears that your understanding of ethics, the underlying principles of moral systems and how moral rules are determined (and possibly changed,) are all very tenuous. This is clear from the fact that you don’t seem to understand that capital punishment may be justified at some times and in some places, but not in others. Capital punishment is something like a moral rule, it is not an underlying moral principle.

Why would you suppose it is okay to drive 100 kph on some roads and not on others? Posted speed limits are traffic rules that are determined based upon principles of safety and traffic flow. Rules are not right in themselves, they are made “right” by appeal to the underlying principles. Likewise, there are underlying and never-changing principles of morality which support some practical moral rules at some times and others at other times. The rules may change depending upon circumstances, but the principles do not.

It is prudential as to whether or not it is justified to assassinate Hitler. Some Roman Catholics say yes, others say no. It is a matter of opinion.

 

[Bradski]

What it does demonstrate is that there might be conditions under which assassination as a moral act might be justified. The next logical step would be to consider what those conditions might be and whether those conditions might justify the attempt on Hitler or the assassination of the Archduke.

So it’s…what’s the term…relative? I could have written the sentence above myself.

Killing is wrong is obviously a trite statement. It HAS to be qualifed. It is absolutely meaningless without qualification. It is ALAWAS relative to the situation.

So what do we do? Well, we can consult the bible or read the catechism. But those will not give us the answer. So what I would suggest, in fact what I haven’t stopped suggesting, is that we must personally consider, as reasonable people, what qualifications, what conditions might be applicable, to make killing a moral act.

ALL acts have different conditions. Have different consequences. Are done for an infinite number of reasons. ALL are relative to the situation. And ALL acts must be lookd at on an individual basis.

Yes, acts can be grouped together so that we don’t have to go through the same process of decision making each time. If you can put forward a good argument for some guy not to beat his wife, then it will be applicable in almost all similar circumstances.

But we have to make these calls outrselves. Even if a religious text demands something, it must be for a reason which we can discern ourselves. Through reason. Using our God given intellect as reasonable people. Using all available information.

It beates the hell out of me to think that anyone could suggest otherwise.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Where did you get that quote from? Are you quoting someone on this thread? Or are you just making things up? commanded and approved are two different words meaning different things. I quoted the papal bull Exsurge Domine which condemned the thesis:
. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
IOW, it is not true that it is against the will of God that heretics be burned. I don’t see anywhere in the encyclical where it shows any disapproval of burning heretics at the stake.

It appears you do not understand the different between “in principle” and “in practice.”

While it may be true that burning of heretics, in principle, is NOT against the will of the Spirit, that does not justify any and all burning of heretics. This is a logical point.

When Jesus said,
“…whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea,”

or when he said,

“This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Clearly, those who deserve such a fate will receive it and THAT is the will of the Spirit.

Now the question, as in the case of assassination, is whether or not any particular heretics should be burned or whether the Spirit wills any to be burned for the reasons they were. That is a whole other consideration.

But it is simply wrong to claim that it is against the will of the Spirit for heretics to be burned because, clearly, according to Jesus, the Angels will consign those who have intentionally caused the “little ones” who believe in him to sin and unrepentant sinners into the ‘blazing furnace.’

I would suppose that if it not against the will of the Spirit for the Angels to throw the wicked into the “blazing furnace” for eternity nor against the will of the Spirit for those who caused others to sin to suffer a fate worse than being drowned in the sea with a great millstone around their neck, then, a fortiori, it can’t necessarily be against the will of the Spirit for heretics to be burned.

Where did any pope ever condemn burning of heretics at the stake, even when it was occurring frequently?

When did you stop beating your wife, Tom?

Just because you are unaware of when it happened does not mean it didn’t happen. This question of yours amounts to about the same as mine above.

Today, on the contrary we see and hear Pope Francis saying that the death penalty is “inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed.”

Sounds like a misquote, or at least a misinterpretation.

I think he said that given the modern ways that societies can protect themselves against murderous thugs the death penalty is no longer an admissible option, implying that it very well could have been at one time and could be again in future times, just not at the moment.

That is not an “in principle” condemnation of the death penalty as you have wrongly inferred.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So it’s…what’s the term…relative? I could have written the sentence above myself.

It makes the moral rule “relative,” but it doesn’t make moral principles or morality itself relative.

Killing is wrong is obviously a trite statement. It HAS to be qualifed. It is absolutely meaningless without qualification. It is ALAWAS relative to the situation.

So what do we do? Well, we can consult the bible or read the catechism. But those will not give us the answer.

I don’t know about you, but when I consult the Bible or read the Catechism I do not look for obvious answers. Rather, I look for the underlying meaning with regard to the ultimate nature of reality and that becomes a critical foundation from which such moral questions can be answered.

What can I say? I never thought of the Bible or the Catechism as a Magic 8 Ball – turn the page and the answer rises to the top. :nope:

So what I would suggest, in fact what I haven’t stopped suggesting, is that we must personally consider, as reasonable people, what qualifications, what conditions might be applicable, to make killing a moral act.

ALL acts have different conditions. Have different consequences. Are done for an infinite number of reasons. ALL are relative to the situation. And ALL acts must be lookd at on an individual basis.

Furthermore, we will be judged, not on the basis of which acts we committed and which we didn’t, but what we have made of ourselves. A big part of that will be how well did we use the “natural resources” – the teachings, lessons and meanings found in the Bible and Catechism to make ourselves (by God’s grace) into persons worthy of eternal life.

Yes, acts can be grouped together so that we don’t have to go through the same process of decision making each time. If you can put forward a good argument for some guy not to beat his wife, then it will be applicable in almost all similar circumstances.

But we have to make these calls outrselves.

Not only do we have to make these calls ourselves, we will be judged by how assiduously and correctly we made these calls because we consistently used the opportunities afforded us by these challenges to turn ourselves into agents capable of making such calls consistently well.

Even if a religious text demands something, it must be for a reason which we can discern ourselves. Through reason. Using our God given intellect as reasonable people. Using all available information.

It beates the hell out of me to think that anyone could suggest otherwise.

I don’t disagree with you, but the devil is in the details. It appears that he was very good about quoting Scripture to tempt Jesus, so merely being able to mine quotes from Scripture to justify yourself doesn’t necessarily get that job done. The question is how do we know when we are truly just(ified?)