V
vern_humphrey
Guest
john doran:
The most common nowadays is abortion.
- Status
J
john_doran
Guest
vern humphrey:
defined as?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
john doran:
You need a definition for abortion? You don’t know what the word means?
J
john_doran
Guest
vern humphrey:
i ask only because i have never been able to make sense of the concept of an intrinsically evil act and hope to discover what i’m missing, if anything.
well, i think it is the intentional killing of a fetus…
i ask only because i have never been able to make sense of the concept of an intrinsically evil act and hope to discover what i’m missing, if anything.
M
masterjedi747
Guest
vern humphrey:
Example: Aztec human sacrifice. Was it immoral? Yes. MURDER (the unjust taking of an innocent human life – of which ABORTION is a form) is an intrinsically evil action. However, certain Aztecs may not have been guilty of commiting mortal sin, if they truly believed that what they were doing was simply offering the best that they had to give to their gods. Sin occurs in the WILL…when you willingly CHOOSE to reject God’s laws. Does that make their actions any less evil? No, not at all. But that doesn’t mean they’re all automatically going to hell, or will all automatically fall under the category of insufficient/incorrect knowledge. Some may, and some may not…right now only God knows which ones of them ended up where.
M
masterjedi747
Guest
john doran:
It’s defined as murder. Murder is the (intentional) unjust killing of an innocent human life.
J
john_doran
Guest
i disagree that you have defined murder correctly: it is intentional killing. period. the insinuation of terms such as “unjust” and “innocent” involves tacit appeals to an untenable agent neutral moral philosophy (e.g. utilitarianism and consequentialism).
J
john_doran
Guest
well, this is what i don’t understand: if an action can be evil, but the individual committing that action nonetheless free from any guilt in performing it, then the action must be a different kind of evil than the evil involved in one’s committing a sin for which one is actually guilty. but if it’s not moral evil, what kind of evil is it, and why should anyone care?
B
BillP
Guest
john doran:
Sorry, you’ve pretty much got to have “bad intention” for murder.
Well the problem with that is that it ignores self-defense, a right the Church explicitly recognizes. It also ignores “just war” a situation wehre a Catholic may find himself with no other moral choice other than to kill enemy soldiers intentionally.
Sorry, you’ve pretty much got to have “bad intention” for murder.
J
john_doran
Guest
well, i disagree - for killing in self defense to be morally licit requires that the death be a foreseen but unintended side-effect of the act.
i would say that the same goes for being a morally rectifiable soldier.
B
BillP
Guest
vern humphrey:
One might be a woman in a physically abusive relationship who is told by her abuser “either you kill it, or I’ll kill you”.
Similarly, a woman in a position where her life would be in jeopardy due to pregnancy is just too frightened of dying to not abort the pregnancy.
Lastly a woman pregant through rape could expericen PTSD so severe that carrying the child to term would result in permanant damage to her pysche.
I submit that if any of these woman chose to abort their baby diminished ability to give full consent would dminish their culpability to something less than mortal sin.
I can think of several cases where a woman might intentionally abort a child and not committ a mortal sin.
One might be a woman in a physically abusive relationship who is told by her abuser “either you kill it, or I’ll kill you”.
Similarly, a woman in a position where her life would be in jeopardy due to pregnancy is just too frightened of dying to not abort the pregnancy.
Lastly a woman pregant through rape could expericen PTSD so severe that carrying the child to term would result in permanant damage to her pysche.
I submit that if any of these woman chose to abort their baby diminished ability to give full consent would dminish their culpability to something less than mortal sin.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
john doran:
To make it murder, the killing must be both intentional and unjustifiable.
He has defined murder correctly. Killing in legitimate self-defense, in just war, or in the apprehension of a dangerous criminal resisting arrest with deadly force are all intentional, but justifiable.
To make it murder, the killing must be both intentional and unjustifiable.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Show me where the Church recognizes these as justifications for abortion.
H
Ham1
Guest
A moral evil object can occur in a moral act without the commission of a sin, mortal or otherwise. Some objects are evil in and of themselves and therefore render the entire act evil however the act could still occur without the commission of a sin if the agent did not fully consent to the act or did not have knowledge of the act. The evil that occurs is still real evil it just does not involve culpability on the part of the agent. It is an action that is disordered and goes against right reason.
H
Ham1
Guest
vern humphrey:
I don’t believe that Bill is attempting to justify these as moral acts. He is illustrating the point that sometimes evil acts can be committed and yet because of insufficient knowledge or consent on the part of the agent, no serious sin (and possibly) no sin is actually committed. There is a difference between whether an act is evil and whether it is a sin. Sometimes we can judge an act to be evil solely by evaluating the object of that act. But in order to judge the sinfulness of that act we must also evaluate the intention and knowledge of the agent.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
john doran:
You just found one – abortion.
H
Ham1
Guest
john doran,
I highly recommend that you read Veritatis Splendor (if you haven’t already). It clearly addresses the concept of intrinsically evil acts and why the Church teaches such a thing.
I highly recommend that you read Veritatis Splendor (if you haven’t already). It clearly addresses the concept of intrinsically evil acts and why the Church teaches such a thing.
B
BillP
Guest
vern humphrey:
See here:
Not supposed to be in any way a justification. Simply circumstances that might impair the woman’s consent and thus reduce or eliminate her culpability.
See here:
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
***"
*(cf. Rom 3:8)
- *One must therefore reject the thesis, *characteristic of teleological and proportionalist theories, *which holds that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species *— its “object” — the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.
- Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such *always and per se, *in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.
**
B
BillP
Guest
john doran:
I think “unintended” in that context means that the death wasn’t the “goal” or “point” of the act, but rather the inextricable consequence of the legitimate act i.e. the defending of ones self or others ot the successful prosecution of a war.
- Status