Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[e_c]

**1. **The object, or more correctly, the moral object is the end of the moral act. The intention is the end-in-view of the moral actor. The moral object does not merely specify the physicality of the act but must, if properly specified, include the reasonable end-in-view of the act. The moral object of the act is independent of the who, where or when circumstances unless the who, when or where are essential to define the moral end of the act alone.

**2. **If proper specification of the moral object requires incorporation of elements that are circumstantial then those, and only those, circumstances become essential to the proper specification of the moral object.

Using your prior example, “playing tennis in church”:

**3. **Moral object: playing tennis to improve muscle tone, strength and flexibility. Morally good.

**4. **Intention: To reinforce one’s social connection with others through athletic competition and cooperation. Morally good.

Circumstances: Who - wife and adult children - morally good.
When - 10:00 am - 12:00 pm Saturday- morally neutral
Where: Church - morally evil

**5. **The action is immoral by circumstance since a morally good action requires goodness in all three fonts. However, the moral object remains morally good.
The purpose of analysis is the opposite of synthesis. Analysis seeks to dissect, break down, divide a complex whole into its parts or elements so as to discover its true nature or inner relationships. The Church teaching on determining the morality of an action is to analyze the action by examination of the action’s constitutive elements - object, intent and circumstance. Prematurely synthesizing circumstance into object defeats the analytical process.

1.Where does the language you are using come from? The “end of a moral act” sounds a lot like “intention.” That’s very sloppy, and really just plain false. The object is, simply put, what one is doing to achieve the intention… or, if you prefer, the MEANS (which stands in contradistinction to the END).

1. YES.
2. This is a bad demarcation in two ways. First, you assume the proper circumstances of tennis into the object, which is to beg the question. (Why isn’t it “moving my arms,” etc.?) Second, you add an intention to the object. Objects stand in relation to intentions but do not include them. (Remember, the intention is a good willed for its own sake. It is distinct from mere desire… We are talking about delectation, not use.) So I suppose my question is, why is what you are holding in your hand not a circumstance of your action but that you are in a church is a circumstance? Whence the distinction?
3. Ok.
4. You are free to declare this, but it is simply not true. And again, we may equivocally say that “the circumstance makes the action bad, and the object stays the same,” but not without qualification. (See the asterisks in my commentary.) In the kind of scenarios we are dealing with, we must speak plainly and articulately.

I notice you did not want to respond to my commentary on Thomas. Why?

The false distinction you are making between act and object is how you shove in the morality of throwing a person into shark-infested waters. Again, I invite you to use the same lack of rigor in setting up the question of contraception and see what you can make of it.

And anyway, I don’t know how you would consider “shark-infested waters” to be a good or neutral circumstance. This is plainer than contraception, which can invoke the principle of stewardship and man’s dominion over nature, etc.

 

[o_mlly]

Correct, a time delay between act and consequence cannot change the intention of the act.
You don’t sound exactly moderate here. Jesus is for everyone bro, wimps included.

In the readings for Mass today, the gospel is MT 10:34 - 11:1. It begins:

Jesus said to his Apostles:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth.
I have come to bring not peace but the sword.
For I have come to set
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and one’s enemies will be those of his household.

Jesus words, I would say, are not moderate either.

You wrote “Did you forget that we agreed “bombing” is not intrinsically evil and that the bomber’s intention to mitigate an unjust aggressor is good. The next issue is one of balance. The issue is not “worth” but proportionate. Does the good effect equal or outweigh the evil.”
Now dude, that’s pure unadulterated consequentialism. You’ve not accepted that anything about the act is intrinsically evil, and you’ve considered nothing but consequences. Consequentialism, by definition.

“Bro” or “dude” – whichever bester describes you. Do you see the total lack of coherence in your comment? First, you correctly report that I have considered the object of the act and then you report I’ve considered nothing but the consequences.

It was your choice to quote them out of order. It’s good you agree the unconditional nature of “The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful”. Now if we could just match that up with your direct intention to plant a bomb for the sole purpose of killing people who are watching a show.

Sorry, bro, I have to call a “Bradski” on you. Read the posts.

Hmm. Rather than using a one-liner summary from an “In Brief” section, let’s look at the full statement instead:
CCC 2265 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.

CCC#2265 says the same thing as CCC#2321. Did you have a point to make?

The right to “use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community”. Not the right to plant a bomb in a theater with the*** direct intent to kill people*** indiscriminately while they’re watching a show.

There you go again, another “Bradski.” Read the posts.

Oh. So using a bomb to kill people indiscriminately while they’re watching a show is morally justified as long as you don’t put your own life in danger?

Look up “suicide.” It does not mean “put[ting] your own life in danger.”

The CCC says otherwise, it does make a distinction:
*CCC 12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful. *
Course, as a Baptist I’m allowed to point these things out.

Because you are a Baptist, I’ll help you out here (this site, called “Catholic Answers” is all about catechesis).
MISSION STATEMENT
Catholic Answers is one of the nation’s largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization. Its mission statement explains its purpose:
Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world. We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.
Also see:
familyformation.net/ChurchDocumentSupport.asp

Yes they do. We are saved by Grace, not by following rules. Jesus gets very angry with those who think redemption is about outwardly following rules without any inward change:
*"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.” - Matt 23*

Jesus does not dismiss the law in your citation. Read the beginning of the chapter. (Minor “Bradski” called.)

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice (MT 23:1-3).

 

[o_mlly]

1.Where does the language you are using come from? The “end of a moral act” sounds a lot like “intention.” That’s very sloppy, and really just plain false. The object is, simply put, what one is doing to achieve the intention… or, if you prefer, the MEANS (which stands in contradistinction to the END).

The terms come from Catholic Moral Theology – “finis operis” and “finis operantis.” Look it up if you do not understand Latin. The church does not think the terms “sloppy” nor would the church teach as true that which is false.

I think we should end the discussion on object, intent and circumstance. We disagree. I’ll address the lifeboat dilemma in a separate post – I am close to putting together a principled argument that differentiates a mother from a “shover” (morally speaking).

 

[e_c]

The terms come from Catholic Moral Theology – “finis operis” and “finis operantis.” Look it up if you do not understand Latin. The church does not think the terms “sloppy” nor would the church teach as true that which is false.

I think we should end the discussion on object, intent and circumstance. We disagree. I’ll address the lifeboat dilemma in a separate post – I am close to putting together a principled argument that differentiates a mother from a “shover” (morally speaking).

Have we not been doing Catholic moral theology?

I explained the finis operis/operantis distinction several times in this thread now (search “proximate good”). But simply using the word “end” without reference to the Latin terms is extremely unhelpful.

You have avoided engaging St. Thomas again. That’s a sure sign that something is awry.

I have gone through pains to show you why your system does not rise to the occasion of these kinds of dilemmas, or even against contraception. It isn’t that there is no distinction between circumstance and object in a moral agent’s psychology (clearly one might be concentrated more on some material action than his surroundings), it is that this distinction is irrelevant for the evaluation of the act when circumstances change the object, which we learn upon commencing the investigation. A push becomes murder when you have sharks below, no matter what the intention is. The circumstances (sharks, gravity, etc.) mean that simply getting the person off the boat is not all that you are doing in the act of pushing him. It is intrinsically evil to select an innocent individual to place into a situation that is foreseen to kill him, when he was not in such a situation before. His death is only conditionally foreseen on the boat, because there are options that are reasonably attained which could prevent his death (viz. someone else is thrown off or someone sacrifices himself). Putting a person into a deadly situation by selection is WRONG, even though you don’t want him to die and it is to save others. Just like craniotomies are WRONG… It’s the same idea.

Yes, the mother and shover (in both lifeboat cases) are different. We explored this more than once… Perhaps you want to show that they are the same?

Friend, I once was as zealous for this kind of thinking as you are now. Then I realized I was wrong after puzzling over the problems that I presented to you.

 

[o_mlly]

… I’ll address the lifeboat dilemma in a separate post – I am close to putting together a principled argument that differentiates a mother from a “shover” (morally speaking).

1. Mother and “shover” – “5 in a lifeboat built for 4.”
   Searching for consistency in the application of the principles of the double effect that would allow the mother to save her life by indirectly killing her child but prevents a survivor from saving his life by (indirectly/directly?) killing another survivor.

I do not now see the ectopic pregnancy and this scenario as parallel situations. I do see hepatic pregnancy as a parallel situation. See ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519057/.

In both scenarios, applying the principles of the double effect, the results are consistent – all die.

The mother may not remove the fetus from her vital organ and none of the survivors may remove another from the lifeboat. Removing the fetus and removing a survivor are intrinsically evil acts because neither the fetus nor anyone of the survivors is an unjust aggressor. The child will destroy the organ killing the mother and the child. The weight of the 5 survivors will sink the lifeboat killing the 5 survivors.

Because both acts are intrinsically evil, no further application of the principles of the double effect are necessary to deem the act immoral.

Oddly, the survivors do have a grotesque but moral option to save all their lives – self-mutilation. Under the principle that mutilation is licit if it is required to conserve the health of the whole body, they may mutilate themselves throwing non-vital body parts overboard thereby lightening the lifeboat and saving their lives.

1. Mother and “shover” – “1 in a lifeboat built for 1.”
   I do not see a parallel in any indirect abortions that apply. There is no mother/“shover” parallel, in my opinion.

This scenario is parallel to the sinking ship and the dilemma the seaman faces who chooses to close the bulkhead door which is the only access to the flooded department in order to save the ship and the greater number of lives on it than there are lives on the other side of the bulkhead. There are no unjust aggressors in either scenario.

Object: Preserve one’s life by gaining or maintaining access to a lifeboat-built-for-one by preventing another’s access that otherwise would sink the boat and result in the death of both. Morally neutral/good. (It does not matter as long as the object is not intrinsically evil.)

Intention: To preserve one’s life. Morally good.

Circumstances/consequences: Adrift in the open seas. One will probably live. One will probably die.

Principles of the Double Effect:

The act is morally good or neutral. Yes.

The good effect is intended. Yes.

The good effect is proportionate or greater than the bad effect. Yes.

The good effect does not proceed from the bad effect. Yes. Preserving the survivor’s life follows from gaining or retaining sole access to the lifeboat built-for-one by preventing the other’s access; it does not follow from the death of the other although that death is a foreseeable, unintended and a tolerated bad effect.

 

[e_c]

My emphases and comments.

1. Mother and “shover” – “5 in a lifeboat built for 4.”
   Searching for consistency in the application of the principles of the double effect that would allow the mother to save her life by indirectly killing her child but prevents a survivor from saving his life by (indirectly/directly?) killing another survivor.

I do not now see the ectopic pregnancy and this scenario as parallel situations. I do see hepatic pregnancy as a parallel situation. See ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519057/.

In both scenarios, applying the principles of the double effect, the results are consistent – all die. We shall see.

The mother may not remove the fetus from her vital organ and none of the survivors may remove another from the lifeboat. You’ve skipped over a distinction that was made multiple times. Removing the fetus and removing a survivor are intrinsically evil acts because neither the fetus nor anyone of the survivors is an unjust aggressor. There it is again. The child will destroy the organ killing the mother and the child. The weight of the 5 survivors will sink the lifeboat killing the 5 survivors. So they’re not really survivors, are they…? Anyway, these are very different. Remember that we agreed it was not necessarily intrinsically evil to move a person from one lethal situation to another. I launched an argument that the lifeboat was not a lethal situation, only a possibly lethal situation because there were reasonably attained options that could prevent this individual’s death. Now, this does not mean that salpingostomies are permissible… There you are targeting a non-willful aggressor by a definite act of destruction.

Because both acts are intrinsically evil, no further application of the principles of the double effect are necessary to deem the act immoral. I’m sorry, maybe I missed something - you have changed your mind?

Oddly, the survivors do have a grotesque but moral option to save all their lives – self-mutilation. Under the principle that mutilation is licit if it is required to conserve the health of the whole body, they may mutilate themselves throwing non-vital body parts overboard thereby lightening the lifeboat and saving their lives. Ok…

1. Mother and “shover” – “1 in a lifeboat built for 1.”
   I do not see a parallel in any indirect abortions that apply. There is no mother/“shover” parallel, in my opinion. There are similarities, but they are not perfect analogies, no. The perfect analogy is the millstone around someone’s neck weighing the boat down.

This scenario is parallel to the sinking ship and the dilemma the seaman faces who chooses to close the bulkhead door which is the only access to the flooded department in order to save the ship and the greater number of lives on it than there are lives on the other side of the bulkhead. There are no unjust aggressors in either scenario. Ok.

Object: Preserve one’s life by gaining or maintaining access to a lifeboat-built-for-one by preventing another’s access that otherwise would sink the boat and result in the death of both. Morally neutral/good. (It does not matter as long as the object is not intrinsically evil.) You mean to say “defense.”

Intention: To preserve one’s life. Morally good. You still don’t understand that the intention is separate from the object. You have your intention as PART OF YOUR OBJECT. This can’t be.

Circumstances/consequences: Adrift in the open seas. One will probably live. One will probably die.

Principles of the Double Effect:

The act is morally good or neutral. Yes.

The good effect is intended. Yes.

The good effect is proportionate or greater than the bad effect. Yes.

The good effect does not proceed from the bad effect. Yes. Preserving the survivor’s life follows from gaining or retaining sole access to the lifeboat built-for-one by preventing the other’s access; it does not follow from the death of the other although that death is a foreseeable, unintended and a tolerated bad effect. Sure.

I’m generally confused by this post. Are you just thinking out loud, or is this a counter argument of some kind?

 

[o_mlly]

My emphases and comments.

I’m generally confused by this post. Are you just thinking out loud, or is this a counter argument of some kind?

Yes, I also think you are generally confused. What you post, when concise, is often original and good. Unfortunately, that which is original is not good and that which is good is not original. I will leave it to others, if they choose, to correct your errors in the future.

Best of luck in your ongoing studies in Catholic morality.

 

[e_c]

Yes, I also think you are generally confused. What you post, when concise, is often original and good. Unfortunately, that which is original is not good and that which is good is not original. I will leave it to others, if they choose, to correct your errors in the future.

Best of luck in your ongoing studies in Catholic morality.

You could not defend your position. Many questions were not answered. The reasonable choice is to change your mind. Instead you run away and take pot shots. Poor form.

I spent a long time obsessed with this problem. I can tell you are just starting out. There are some questions that aren’t as clear as these ones… We didn’t even get to those.

 

[PRmerger]

So that drinking someone’s blood and eating their body would be ok? I seem to recall that certain religious groups use that idea in their ceremonies.

Drinking someone’s blood and eating their flesh isn’t immoral because it’s icky.

It’s immoral because it corrupts the inherent dignity of the human body.

The beautiful sacrament of the Eucharist does nothing close to this type of desecration of our dignity.

 

[PRmerger]

By the way, when that plane went down in the Andes (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Andes_flight_disaster), and the survivors had to resort to cannibalism, no one condemned them for their actions, not even the Vatican.

I am not sure where you get this expectation that the Vatican would comment about a plane crash that resulted in the death of about 2 dozen people?

So maybe cannibalism is not “really” immoral, is it?

I am astonished–simply astonished–to see this being presented as a moral option.

Perhaps in a world devoid of theistic principles…,.but thank goodness we have a world that is influenced by the the Christian ethos and we don’t have to ever present “maybe cannibalism isn’t really that bad” as an option.

 

[Tandem]

I am not sure where you get this expectation that the Vatican would comment about a plane crash that resulted in the death of about 2 dozen people?

The point is not the death of 2 dozen people. It is the alleged “immorality” of cannibalism. I would see nothing wrong about the pope and/or the bishops and/or the priests give guidance in such a supposedly serious “moral” situation.

I am astonished–simply astonished–to see this being presented as a moral option.

Well, since you still did not elaborate on the “moral law”, nor did you enlighten me “where does it come from”… I can’t understand your astonishment.

Perhaps in a world devoid of theistic principles…,.but thank goodness we have a world that is influenced by the the Christian ethos and we don’t have to ever present “maybe cannibalism isn’t really that bad” as an option.

In the ages before Christianity came on the scene - like in the times of the Aztec empire - the world was not influenced by the Christian ethos. Even today, if YOU and your family were among the survivors of a similar plane crash (and I fervently hope it will never happen) I am very sure that you would not object to cannibalism if your life (and your children’s life) would depend on it. And I cannot imagine anyone condemn you for your (hypothetical) actions. So, yes. Maybe under some extreme circumstances cannibalism is “not that bad”.

But let’s go back to the really important questions (so far unanswered despite several “nudges”). You said:

Moral behavior is that which is in conformity to the moral law.

So, let’s get to meat. Where does that “moral law” come from? And…

Accepted behavior is just that. It can be accepted but immoral.

That is tautology. The question is how can you decide if an “accepted behavior” is “immoral” or not? Is public nudity always immoral? Is publicly performed sex always immoral? Even in the stone age? Or in a private nudist colony? How could the people in the stone age “figure out” what will be considered “immoral” tens of thousands of years in their future?

I would appreciate if you actually answered these questions.

 

[PRmerger]

The point is not the death of 2 dozen people. It is the alleged “immorality” of cannibalism. I would see nothing wrong about the pope and/or the bishops and/or the priests give guidance in such a supposedly serious “moral” situation.

Oh. You first mentioned the Vatican. Now you’re extending it to priests.

Well, I did a cursory google search and quickly found this:

church officials were quick to affirm that such acts in extremis were acceptable, and that the sin would have been to not do what was necessary in order to survive.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/13/1143874/-40-Years-Ago-Today-The-Andes-Plane-Cr

Well, since you still did not elaborate on the “moral law”, nor did you enlighten me “where does it come from”…

The Moral Lawgiver, Tandem. Of course.

In the ages before Christianity came on the scene - like in the times of the Aztec empire - the world was not influenced by the Christian ethos

True, true. And that’s why they had human sacrifice.

Even today, if YOU and your family were among the survivors of a similar plane crash (and I fervently hope it will never happen) I am very sure that you would not object to cannibalism if your life (and your children’s life) would depend on it. And I cannot imagine anyone condemn you for your (hypothetical) actions. So, yes.

Cannibalism isn’t immoral because it’s icky, Tandem.

It’s immoral because it violates the dignity of the human person–both the deceased as well as the “cannibal”.

When one is compelled to eat human flesh for survival, that’s not the same thing as what we’re discussing.

Maybe under some extreme circumstances cannibalism is “not that bad”.

Oh, eating human flesh in order to survive is indeed “that bad”. It’s just that it may necessary in extremis.

 

[PRmerger]

That is tautology. The question is how can you decide if an “accepted behavior” is “immoral” or not? Is public nudity always immoral? Is publicly performed sex always immoral? Even in the stone age? Or in a private nudist colony? How could the people in the stone age “figure out” what will be considered “immoral” tens of thousands of years in their future?

All behaviors should be compared to the moral law, and to the degree that it is in conformity is the degree to which it is to be endorsed.

So the moral law says that it is wrong to use someone as an object.

So someone views pornography…that’s using a person as an object of sexual gratification…that’s immoral.

All of the situations you list above need to be… fleshed out… (haha! get it? given the context of our cannibalism discussion )…vis a vis the object, the intention, the circumstance.

 

[PRmerger]

How could the people in the stone age “figure out” what will be considered “immoral” tens of thousands of years in their future?.

I’m not exactly understanding this question.

Why would people in the stone age have to figure out what would be considered immoral tens of thousands of years in their future.

We are asserting that it was immoral for the stone age people to kill someone for the purpose of eating their flesh.

And it’s immoral for people today to kill someone for the purpose of eating their flesh.

 

[PRmerger]

I am still waiting for you to enlighten me. Where does that “moral law” come from? And how could those ancient Aztecs know “what” is “immoral”? These are important questions.

In your view, as a “lapsed Calvinist”, how does human society determine what is moral?

Where does this morality come from?

There is a “minor” difference between the Jews and the Aztecs. The Aztec victims of those sacrifices considered their fate to be a high honor. The Jews did not. Don’t you see the difference between a voluntary participant in the sacrifice and being herded into a gas-chamber? I am sure you do…

Are you saying that if there were a society in which parents volunteered their children to be sacrificed that this would be moral?

 

[inocente]

inocente;14033584:

You don’t sound exactly moderate here. Jesus is for everyone bro, wimps included.

Jesus words, I would say, are not moderate either.

You interpretation of that passage is awry. Read it again and reconcile it with “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth … Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God”.

“Bro” or “dude” – whichever bester describes you. Do you see the total lack of coherence in your comment? First, you correctly report that I have considered the object of the act and then you report I’ve considered nothing but the consequences.

Heh. In consequentialism the object is to maximize some good, such as lives, well-being or pleasure. I thought we’d gone through this. bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml

Read the posts.
CCC#2265 says the same thing as CCC#2321. Did you have a point to make?

CCC 2321 is part of a brief summary, it doesn’t contain CCC 2265’s important sentence “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”.

You are not repelling aggressors by bombing a theater.

There you go again, another “Bradski.” Read the posts.

You are not repelling aggressors, you are not acting in self-defense and you are not using any principle of minimum force. You know for certain that your chosen weapon will kill people indiscriminately, so by choosing that weapon you make indiscriminate killing part of your intent.

Look up “suicide.” It does not mean “put[ting] your own life in danger.”

In a situation where you could not plant your bomb beforehand, you’ve ruled it immoral to walk into the theater with the bomb and detonate it knowing you will be killed. Whereas you’ve ruled it virtuous to plant the bomb beforehand and run away so you’ll be perfectly safe when it goes off. Stranger and stranger.

*Because you are a Baptist, I’ll help you out here (this site, called “Catholic Answers” is all about catechesis). *

CA isn’t CAF. Putting Catholic on your profile doesn’t make you an expert or a member of CA staff. And, unless you’ve been appointed to an official role, laity are not what CCC 12 means by “those responsible for catechesis”.

Jesus does not dismiss the law in your citation. Read the beginning of the chapter. (Minor “Bradski” called.)

I said “Jesus gets very angry with those who think redemption is about outwardly following rules without any inward change”.

Apropos of nothing, a poster who is having trouble stringing together logical arguments will be tempted to snipe at other posters, or make out that he’s an authority, or that an opponent isn’t reading the subtle nuances of his posts, or that there are complexities beyond the ken of ordinary mortals, etc.

 

[inocente]

And for Christians, who is not responsible for catechizing their fellow Christians?

There are Christians who know little or who have wrong ideas. They are not authorities and shouldn’t be teaching their ideas to other Christians. Quality control is needed, see CCC 12.

Make the distinctions, pick up on the subtleties, and be sure you respond to what is actually said.

Having to do a you-said-i-said is a bit tiresome.

You said “Throwing someone off a boat is, in itself, morally neutral after all.”

I said “Can’t see how throwing someone off a boat can ever be morally neutral unless perhaps (a) they have consented to being thrown and (b) you have a high degree of certainty that they will come to no harm and (c) you do all in your power to keep them from harm until safely back on the boat. Why do you say it’s morally neutral?”

You said “Also, pushing someone off a boat is not always wrong. Therefore, in itself, it’s at least morally neutral.”

I said “Killing someone is not always wrong. That doesn’t make the act of killing morally neutral. I’m being told that pushing someone off a lifeboat far from land is morally neutral. Of course it isn’t.”

You said “Make the distinctions, pick up on the subtleties, and be sure you respond to what is actually said.”

That’s the entire conversation. There are no subtle distinctions. Pushing someone against his will off a lifeboat far from land is never morally neutral. It’s either good if done to try to save him from a greater danger, or else it’s evil. Never morally neutral.

 

[Tandem]

Oh. You first mentioned the Vatican. Now you’re extending it to priests.

I said: “no one, not even the Vatican”. It was a very wide, inclusive statement, including the pope, the bishops, the priests… and all.

Well, I did a cursory google search and quickly found this:

church officials were quick to affirm that such acts in extremis were acceptable, and that the sin would have been to not do what was necessary in order to survive.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/13/1143874/-40-Years-Ago-Today-The-Andes-Plane-Cr

I agree one hundred percent. Of course I talk about “in extremis” situations. All I wanted to point out that an allegedly “absolute” law would not allow exceptions, not even in the most extreme cases. I am delighted that you agree. Welcome to the camp of “moral relativists”.

Now let’s remember that our primary responsibility is to take care of ourselves. (If we don’t, we would not be in the position to help others.) If one wishes to sacrifice herself for someone else, that is her prerogative. But no one should condemn her to take care of herself even at the expense of others. You might not “praise” such a person, but you should not “disparage” her either. After all the command “you must love your neighbor as you love yourself” does not say “you must love your neighbor MORE than you love yourself”.

The Moral Lawgiver, Tandem. Of course.

Please don’t talk in riddles. Where can I have access to the “moral lawbook”? Where I can review the laws as issued?

True, true. And that’s why they had human sacrifice.

That was not the question. The question is: “on what ground would those sacrifices be considered immoral, if the people had no access to the Christian ethos?” According to their religion and their value system it were the gods who welcomed these sacrifices, and even the “victims” welcomed the opportunity to be sacrificed. That society was completely devoid of Christian values and ethos.

When one is compelled to eat human flesh for survival, that’s not the same thing as what we’re discussing.

Of course it is. Cannibalism is simply: “eating human flesh”. The ways and means to acquire that flesh are important, but that does not change the “cannibalism” aspect.

All behaviors should be compared to the moral law, and to the degree that it is in conformity is the degree to which it is to be endorsed.

Is there an on-line resource which would enumerate the “laws”? Paragraph by paragraph, of course. I am not interested in a wild goose chase. I am interested in learning.

So the moral law says that it is wrong to use someone as an object.

That sounds like a good starting point. But to view someone’s picture, or statue, or a movie, or a literary description of a person is NOT using that person. And if the person in question agreed to be displayed then it is no one else’s business. The phrase “using someone” implicitly includes “against her wishes”.

In your view, as a “lapsed Calvinist”, how does human society determine what is moral?

Where does this morality come from?

Are you saying that if there were a society in which parents volunteered their children to be sacrificed that this would be moral?

I will be more than happy to discuss these questions, but let’s finish the current topic.

---

However, I will present a quick summary. As far as I am concerned, the question: “is action X moral?” is too broad to answer. The correctly formed question: “is action X in these circumstances, performed with these ends in sight and according to these principles considered justifiable?”. Mind you, I include the object (what), the intention (why) and the circumstances (how) - but the ethical principles also must be included.

What is considered “moral” in one ethical system is not necessarily “moral” in another ethical system. And this makes these discussions very difficult.

 

[o_mlly]

You interpretation of that passage is awry. Read it again and reconcile it with “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth … Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God”.

I believe I have the interpretation of that passage correct.

The Beatitudes are often interpreted incorrectly. Those who can be meek (or any other of the Beatitudes) are only so because they are first blessed. All goodness comes from God. God blesses us in order to radicalize us to do His will which is to die to the self. Love God first, neighbor second – whether that neighbor is one’s father, mother, daughter, son or self.

Heh. In consequentialism the object is to maximize some good, such as lives, well-being or pleasure. I thought we’d gone through this. bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml

I thought we did, too. In consequentialism the only object is to maximize outcomes.

CCC 2321 is part of a brief summary, it doesn’t contain CCC 2265’s important sentence “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”.

Well, this is interesting logic. Are you claiming that because the catechism says ***twice ***: “The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm” means that this teaching is not reinforced but eliminated?

You are not repelling aggressors by bombing a theater.

I’m just typing. The bomber is acting to make an “unjust aggressor … unable to cause harm.”

You are not repelling aggressors, you are not acting in self-defense and you are not using any principle of minimum force. You know for certain that your chosen weapon will kill people indiscriminately, so by choosing that weapon you make indiscriminate killing part of your intent.

I’m still only typing. The bomber is rendering an unjust aggressor’s capacity to do harm. The bomber is also killing discriminately and is justified in doing so. Now, if the bomber sets a nuclear device in a 300 seat theater, then a minimum force principle should come into the moral equation.

In a situation where you could not plant your bomb beforehand, you’ve ruled it immoral to walk into the theater with the bomb and detonate it knowing you will be killed.

You’re not going to like this, but that’s another “Bradski.” I posted that suicide, the intended killing of oneself, is immoral always and everywhere (intrinsically evil). For his act to be moral, the bomber may not intend his own death but may accept it as the unintended but tolerated bad effect.

In Whereas you’ve ruled it virtuous to plant the bomb beforehand and run away so you’ll be perfectly safe when it goes off. Stranger and stranger.

The bomber may morally do either.

CA isn’t CAF. Putting Catholic on your profile doesn’t make you an expert or a member of CA staff. And, unless you’ve been appointed to an official role, laity are not what CCC 12 means by “those responsible for catechesis”.

Who said I’m an expert? The authority of our catechism is in its footnotes. i.e. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Teaching of the Magisterium. By citing the Catechism, as I do frequently, I recognize the work as my authority, not me.

I said “Jesus gets very angry with those who think redemption is about outwardly following rules without any inward change”.

That’s absolutely correct. But the Lord did not say all that is required is an attitude adjustment. To wit:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven (MT 5:17-19).

Apropos of nothing, a poster who is having trouble stringing together logical arguments will be tempted to snipe at other posters, or make out that he’s an authority, or that an opponent isn’t reading the subtle nuances of his posts, or that there are complexities beyond the ken of ordinary mortals, etc.

Yes, such sniping is awful. One should reject such temptations immediately.

 

[o_mlly]

There are Christians who know little or who have wrong ideas. They are not authorities and shouldn’t be teaching their ideas to other Christians. Quality control is needed, see CCC 12.

Yes. One should certainly cite their source(s) of authority. Listeners should be on notice: "“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves (Mat 7:15).