Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Bradski]

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.

Abject nonsense.

“But he makes quite clear that the use of capital punishment signifies “a failure” on the part of any State. However serious the crime, he says, an execution “does not bring justice to the victims, but rather encourages revenge” and denies any hope of repentence or reparation for the crime that has been committed.” news.va/en/news/pope-francis-no-crime-ever-deserves-the-death-pena

If that isn’t condemnation of the death penalty now, in the past and for ever into the future, then I don’t know what is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Abject nonsense.

“But he makes quite clear that the use of capital punishment signifies “a failure” on the part of any State. However serious the crime, he says, an execution “does not bring justice to the victims, but rather encourages revenge” and denies any hope of repentence or reparation for the crime that has been committed.” news.va/en/news/pope-francis-no-crime-ever-deserves-the-death-pena

If that isn’t condemnation of the death penalty now, in the past and for ever into the future, then I don’t know what is.

Clearly, you don’t know “what is,” since the qualifier used in the very report you quoted states…

(Vatican Radio) Capital punishment is cruel, inhuman and an offense to the dignity of human life. In today’s world, the death penalty is “inadmissible, however serious the crime” that has been committed. That was Pope Francis’ unequivocal message to members of the International Commission against the death penalty who met with him on Friday morning in the Vatican.

In today’s world does not imply “in the past and for ever into the future” no matter what license you take.

 

[Bradski]

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

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?)

There ARE no moral rules that stand alone. They ALL need qualification. You cannot name one that doesn’t. You WILL need to qualify it in some way. There will always BE a way to qualify it. There will always be different interpretations depending on the circumstances.

And it will be no good trotting out a trite example of something you consider always to be wrong. Because you will then not be asserting a moral principle but giving an example of how a moral principle should be interpreted. According to the conditions that you select.

And of course the devil is in the details. Did someone post something that suggested that morality was easy? It isn’t. Precisely because there is no magic 8 ball that gives you easy answers to difficult questions. We have to work those out ourselves.

And we can do that without any help from any specifc religion. Apart from some monstrously idiotic rules such not playing with your own genitals, then any moral teaching that you find in scripture or the catechism can be found eleswhere. And in NO SINGLE CASE should it be taken as the last word on the subject in any case. In needs to be discussed. Outsde of a religious context for it to have any meaning at all.

Otherwise, what you are left with is a statement that says: ‘This is the way it should be, because it says so here’. As I keep repeating, such statements will be ignored.

 

[Bradski]

Clearly, you don’t know “what is,” since the qualifier used in the very report you quoted states…

(Vatican Radio) Capital punishment is cruel, inhuman and an offense to the dignity of human life. In today’s world, the death penalty is “inadmissible, however serious the crime” that has been committed. That was Pope Francis’ unequivocal message to members of the International Commission against the death penalty who met with him on Friday morning in the Vatican.

In today’s world does not imply “in the past and for ever into the future” no matter what license you take.

“Pope Francis makes clear that justice can never be done by killing another human being…”

Can never be done. Not cannot presently be done. Not might have been OK in the past. The word is ‘Never’. Look it up. It means ‘at no time in the past or future’.

I think that’s clear enough.

 

[Peter_Plato]

“Pope Francis makes clear that justice can never be done by killing another human being…”

Can never be done. Not cannot presently be done. Not might have been OK in the past. The word is ‘Never’. Look it up. It means ‘at no time in the past or future’.

I think that’s clear enough.

This assumes that the only reason for capital punishment is to bring about justice in some sense. This retributive aspect of capital punishment is not the only one in question. It may be that in societies which cannot insure the safety of citizens that it may be permissible to put to death those who pose a legitimate threat to public safety. It may not be the question of justice that settles the issue for all time, but rather one of defending the innocent from the violent. It may be that justice doesn’t make any of the case FOR capital punishment, which means the question of justice isn’t the one that settles the issue.

 

[Bradski]

This assumes that the only reason for capital punishment is to bring about justice in some sense. This retributive aspect of capital punishment is not the only one in question. It may be that in societies which cannot insure the safety of citizens that it may be permissible to put to death those who pose a legitimate threat to public safety. It may not be the question of justice that settles the issue for all time, but rather one of defending the innocent from the violent. It may be that justice doesn’t make any of the case FOR capital punishment, which means the question of justice isn’t the one that settles the issue.

You are struggling, Peter. First the pope didn’t say it. Then he did. Then be didn’t mean it for ever. Then he did.

Now we have the laughable supposition that the pope might think it could be ok if the bad guy couldn’t be locked up. So I mean. We might have kill him then. Wouldn’t we?

Peter says - Yes, the pope might be ok with that.

Sheesh…

 

[Tomdstone]

You are struggling, Peter. First the pope didn’t say it. Then he did. Then be didn’t mean it for ever. Then he did.

Yes. What is the right answer? But Peter has criticized the way reasonable people pick the right answer.

Ah, yes, but do “reasonable people” pick it BECAUSE it is the “right answer” or is it the “right answer” BECAUSE “reasonable people” pick it?

If the former, the question of how the “right answer” is determined is still wide open. If the latter, then the question to be answered is how are “reasonable” people determined to be “reasonable” in a non-question-begging manner.

Either way, you have succeeded in merely kicking the can a little further down the street without having solved the real problem.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are struggling, Peter. First the pope didn’t say it. Then he did. Then be didn’t mean it for ever. Then he did.

Now we have the laughable supposition that the pope might think it could be ok if the bad guy couldn’t be locked up. So I mean. We might have kill him then. Wouldn’t we?

Peter says - Yes, the pope might be ok with that.

Sheesh…

It seems you are confusing what the Pope might have said, what he meant and the defined teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment.

Clearly, the Pope is not “okay” with capital punishment in modern society. We can all agree on that. The reasons why he is not okay with it are not as simple as you might insist.

The question has been worked out quite thoroughly in Catholic moral teaching. You might want to do some extra reading.

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: As far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Otherwise, what you are left with is a statement that says: ‘This is the way it should be, because it says so here’. As I keep repeating, such statements will be ignored.

Funny, that sounds an awful lot like you saying capital punishment is always wrong because “it says so here” in the writings or words of Pope Francis.

Unlike merely because “Pope Francis said so here,” the citations from the CCC that I gave explain why capital punishment may at times be justifiable.

It isn’t because “it says so here” in the CCC, it is the reasoning behind what it says that the CCC spells out.

In some societies, capital punishment is an extension of the right of self-defense. Clearly, in some societies that will not be a justifiable reason, but that does not entail it is NEVER a justifiable option in any society.

Again, Pope Francis was speaking of “modern societies,” a point you want to gloss over.

 

[Bradski]

Clearly, the Pope is not “okay” with capital punishment in modern society. We can all agree on that. The reasons why he is not okay with it are not as simple as you might insist.

You are wrong again. The pope is not ok with capital punishment at any time. Ever. Not just ‘in modern society’. Give it up, Peter.

And one more time yet again. Do NOT put arguments into my mouth so that you can easily refute them. It is beyond tiresome

Nobody, least of all myself. suggested that the reasons for his position, which you have constantly misrepresented, are simple.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are wrong again. The pope is not ok with capital punishment at any time. Ever. Not just ‘in modern society’. Give it up, Peter.

And one more time yet again. Do NOT put arguments into my mouth so that you can easily refute them. It is beyond tiresome

Nobody, least of all myself. suggested that the reasons for his position, which you have constantly misrepresented, are simple.

Without the reasons for his position, there is no determining the reach of his position as far as when and where it applies.

As Pope of the Catholic Church, Francis, I am sure, agrees with the basic reasoning behind what the CCC has explicated as the Church’s position on capital punishment. Ultimately, what the Pope said or wrote and what the CCC states are in accord, despite that you are attempting to make them discordant.

 

[Bradski]

IWithout the reasons for his position, there is no determining the reach of his position as far as when and where it applies.

Without his reasons? What on earth are you talking about? The article is nothing but a list of reasons why he is forever against it. I really can’t be bothered to cut and paste them.

What next? Maybe a bad translation? Maybe it was a different pope? Good grief…

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Murdering anyone is never permitted as the act is intrinsically evil. The killing of a tyrant is not necessarily murder as is the killing of an unjust aggressor is not necessarily murder.

 

[inocente]

In today’s world does not imply “in the past and for ever into the future” no matter what license you take.

Are you claiming that Pope Francis is a moral relativist? Or is it rather that you’d very much like him to be?

You quoted Pope Francis: “(Vatican Radio) Capital punishment is cruel, inhuman and an offense to the dignity of human life.”

The Pope is stating that it’s categorically wrong. If it’s an offense to the dignity of human life today then it always was and always will be. If it’s cruel today then it always was and always will be.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are you claiming that Pope Francis is a moral relativist? Or is it rather that you’d very much like him to be?

You quoted Pope Francis: “(Vatican Radio) Capital punishment is cruel, inhuman and an offense to the dignity of human life.”

The Pope is stating that it’s categorically wrong. If it’s an offense to the dignity of human life today then it always was and always will be. If it’s cruel today then it always was and always will be.

False dichotomy. A moral relativist is not someone who thinks any or even one moral rule is relative. In the words of Aristotle, “One swallow does not a summer make.” A moral relativist is one who thinks all moral rules are relative because there are no absolute moral principles, merely those subscribed to by the changing whims of cultures or individuals.

I think we need to disambiguate, again, between moral rules and moral principles. It is entirely possible that moral principles are absolute, whereas moral rules may depend to some extent or other upon circumstances, motives, ends and the like.

Now, I suppose you are going to accuse God of being a moral relativist because in the Old Testament sodomy, blasphemy and adultery were capital offenses commanded by God to be carried out by the community, but in the New Testament God appears to command mercy instead of stoning.

Now, either the circumstances have changed how and why the “moral rules” of engagement are being executed or God is – according to you, anyway – a moral relativist.

I would suggest that there are overriding moral principles which God has ordained and those do not change, but the circumstances that humans find themselves in then and now have changed. Ergo, moral rules might be relative to times and circumstances but underlying moral principles are not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Without his reasons? What on earth are you talking about? The article is nothing but a list of reasons why he is forever against it. I really can’t be bothered to cut and paste them.

What next? Maybe a bad translation? Maybe it was a different pope? Good grief…

Yes, his reasons for why capital punishment is NOT an option “IN THE MODERN WORLD” ARE listed, but his reasons for why capital punishment is NEVER an option in ANY times and places is conspicuously absent.

 

[James_Tyler]

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.

Maybe. Some atheists have decried some of the supposed crimes God committed in the Old Testament such as genocide. Your a good apologetic for the Old Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Again, what is it that you think the CC teaches regarding the death penalty?

 

[PRmerger]

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

Again, you are changing the goalposts.

You asked if it was OBJECTIVELY good or bad.

And there is no one here who ought to say that assassinations are objectively good.

 

[inocente]

False dichotomy. A moral relativist is not someone who thinks any or even one moral rule is relative. In the words of Aristotle, “One swallow does not a summer make.” A moral relativist is one who thinks all moral rules are relative because there are no absolute moral principles, merely those subscribed to by the changing whims of cultures or individuals.

I think we need to disambiguate, again, between moral rules and moral principles. It is entirely possible that moral principles are absolute, whereas moral rules may depend to some extent or other upon circumstances, motives, ends and the like.

Now, I suppose you are going to accuse God of being a moral relativist because in the Old Testament sodomy, blasphemy and adultery were capital offenses commanded by God to be carried out by the community, but in the New Testament God appears to command mercy instead of stoning.

Now, either the circumstances have changed how and why the “moral rules” of engagement are being executed or God is – according to you, anyway – a moral relativist.

I would suggest that there are overriding moral principles which God has ordained and those do not change, but the circumstances that humans find themselves in then and now have changed. Ergo, moral rules might be relative to times and circumstances but underlying moral principles are not.

No, the circumstances didn’t change. And God’s commands don’t change with the circumstances .

What changed was Christ bringing us the New Covenant.

John 13: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Luke 22: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”.

Hebrews 8: “By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.”

As a Christian Pope Francis is making the fairly obvious statement that “capital punishment is cruel, inhuman and an offense to the dignity of human life”. It is categorically wrong to cold-bloodily do that to one of God’s children - it breaks the new command, it breaches the New Covenant. There are no get-out clauses in God’s commands, they don’t depend on circumstances, there is no small print.

Today’s world is the world of the New Covenant. Now you’re welcome to say Pope Francis is mistaken, or there is no new command, or no New Covenant, or God’s commands change with the wind according to circumstances, but that would be a mighty strange point of view for a Christian.