Objective morality, Relative morality, or No morality...?

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

but what kind of evil? it’s certainly not moral evil.

Evil per se.

 

[BillP]

john doran:

right. but one still has to intend to do it for it to be evil - if one is unconscious and it happens, or if someone ties you up and then does it to you, it’s not an evil that you have done.

Nope, it’s still an evil you have done, you just diminished responsibility for it under certain circumstances.
john doran:

and i think that the structure of mastubatory acts is such that they cannot be recitifably chosen or engaged in. which just means that they can never be legitimately intended.

Right, that’s what the church says.

 

[john_doran]

Ham1:

Please explain your comment that masturbation cannot be legitimately intended.

it is impossible to choose or intend the basic human goods at stake in any proposed act of masturbation in a manner that is fully consistent with those goods.

in much the same way, it is impossible to intend to kill someone in a manner that is fully consistent with all the basic human goods, since one of the basic human goods is (human) life, and intending to kill necessarily involves willing the negation of that good.

of course, one could come up with an example where orgasmic ejaculation is simplya foreseen but unintended consequence of one’s action: imagine that you wake up one day to find yourself bound to a chair in a room with a bomb on a timer. imagine further that the only way to free yourself from the chair is to saw through one of the arms of the chair with a saw that has been taped into your hand, and that you have been allowed the freedom of motion to use the saw. but it also turns out that there is a string connecting the saw to a stimulating device that has been attached to your genitals such that whenever you move the saw, you are caused genital pleasure.

now, the only way to survive is to saw through the arm as fast as you can (there’s 5 minutes on the timer). is it morally licit to save yourself, even though in doing so you will cause yourself to ejaculate?

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

Evil per se.

sure, it’s an intrinsic evil of some kind. but what kind?

look, there are natural evils and there are moral evils, and there is presumably some other category of evil that includes things that are done by people which are not morally evil.

what’s that class of evil?

and what difference does it make to our choices? i mean, so what if we do “evil” for which we’re not morally responsible? on the other hand, if the evil you’re describing is relevant to our moral deliberations, and it is an evil that is independent of the evil we do when we choose (i.e. intend) badly, then how do you avoid ascribing to a moral theory like utilitarianism where the moral measure of an act is just how much good or evil is embodied by the results of what you do, irresepective of why you do it?

and that, incidentally, is the kind of ethical system against which paul levels his famous dictum, don’t do evil that good may come of it; if what makes things good is simply that, when you’re finished acting, there is more good than evil in the world, then you can do things like rape and kill a little child in order to save the lives of, say, 100 people. or 10. or 5…

 

[john_doran]

BillP:

Nope, it’s still an evil you have done, you just diminished responsibility for it under certain circumstances.

right - you’re just stating that it’s “intrinsically evil” again. and i am once again going to point out that i have no idea what that means.

i have either committed a moral evil, or i have not. if i have, then i can be morally culpable for actions that do not meet the conditions for mortal sin.

if i haven’t committed a moral evil, then saying that the action is nonetheless evil is quite literally unintelligible to me. evil how?

if i twitch in my sleep and my blanket falls from my bed and gets set on fire by a faulty heater, and the fire kills my wife and son, i am clearly not morally culpable for their deaths. but then what does it mean to say that i have still done some kind of evil? i mean, if all you’re saying is that, in this example, the deaths of me, my wife, and my son are evil in the sense that they involve the privation of life, then fair enough. but that’s of course not an evaluation of anything i’ve done more than it is one of some state of affairs…

 

[BillP]

john doran:

if i haven’t committed a moral evil, then saying that the action is nonetheless evil is quite literally unintelligible to me. evil how?.

Evil in that something that shouldn’t have happened happened regardless of who (if anything) is responsible.
john doran:

if i twitch in my sleep and my blanket falls from my bed and gets set on fire by a faulty heater, and the fire kills my wife and son, i am clearly not morally culpable for their deaths. but then what does it mean to say that i have still done some kind of evil? i mean, if all you’re saying is that, in this example, the deaths of me, my wife, and my son are evil in the sense that they involve the privation of life, then fair enough. but that’s of course not an evaluation of anything i’ve done more than it is one of some state of affairs…

I think you’ve got it in this example. Yes, the deaths of you, your wife and child are evil.Yes, you caused the evil. No, you’re not in any way responsible or culpable for it.

Similarly in your example of the man in the chair. The ejaculation of semen outside of its proper evironment is an intrinisic evil. But in that scenario the man would have no responsibility or culpability for it.

 

[mosher]

To help determine if an act is intrinsically evil or if it is intrinsically good then one must work on to levels.

first - am I acting in accord with the nature of the object
second - is my action directed to the good (i.e. a virtue)

I fyou can answer in the affirmative to these questions then generally you will be able to determine if the action is a good action or and evil action.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

For the act in question to be licit, all Five Tests for Double Effect must be met.

1. The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);
2. The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;
3. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by means of the foreseen harmful effects, when no other means of achieving those effects are available;
4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);
5. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

 

[masterjedi747]

john doran:

imagine that you wake up one day to find yourself bound to a chair in a room with a bomb on a timer. imagine further that the only way to free yourself from the chair is to saw through one of the arms of the chair with a saw that has been taped into your hand, and that you have been allowed the freedom of motion to use the saw. but it also turns out that there is a string connecting the saw to a stimulating device that has been attached to your genitals such that whenever you move the saw, you are caused genital pleasure.

now, the only way to survive is to saw through the arm as fast as you can (there’s 5 minutes on the timer). is it morally licit to save yourself, even though in doing so you will cause yourself to ejaculate?

ROTFL!!! wipes tears from eyes I’m sorry…I would sumbit that the answer it YES, so long as you do not have the intention of willingly letting it happen. And let’s be honest…if you think you’re going to die in less than 5 minutes, who in their right mind would even THINK of letting themselves be stimulated like that? You would probably panic, cut through the chair in less than 15 seconds, and be up and out of there ASAP…hardly enough time for you to be stimulated enough for anything to happen at all.

BUT ANYWAY… I do think I see what you’re getting at. Let’s see what I can do.

To say that there are “different types” of evil in the world is OK, to a certain degree…we can all see it is obvious that there is a difference between the destruction caused by tornadoes/hurricanes (“natural evil”) and murder (“moral evil”). But the most important thing we can realize is this: TRUE EVIL is MORAL EVIL…using your free will to choose to disobey God, like Lucifer and the other fallen angels did. Moral evil is at a level far above and beyond “natural evil”…think about it: what is (for example) a tornado/hurricane? A mixture of wind and water…there’s nothing TRULY evil about that, or any of the physical disorder it creates. There’s nothing INTRINSICALLY evil about pushing a particular piece metal into the flesh of a living animal. You’re manipulating matter and re-arranging the existing molecules/atoms…big deal.

MORAL disorder is what we really need to be concerned with. Sin occurs in the WILL. You have to KNOW that it is against God’s law, and then CHOOSE to do it anyway. When we say that “murder is an intrinsically evil action”…we’re not REALLY talking about the physical action itself when you get down to it. We’re talking about the SPIRITUAL CHOICE that you made to carry out the action…the moment when you CHOSE to do it right then and pull the trigger. Because if you don’t use your free will to CHOOSE to do it, then it’s not murder, and therefore not a mortal sin. Sin occurs in the free will actions of the soul…it is of a spiritual nature.

Intrinsically evil actions DO exist…but they are not PHYSICAL actions. They are SPIRITUAL actions of your soul…FREE WILL decisions that you have made to rebel against God. When it really comes down to it, physical “natural evils” are not TRULY evil. True evil (which is unnatural) can only be found in the spiritual realm of MORAL EVIL, the exact same realm in which it was first “created” by Satan. It’s not the easiest thing in the world to understand, but it makes a whole lot of sense when you step back and look at it. Hope this helps.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Note: Has the OP PM’d the person quoted with a link to this thread? He may not be aware of the thread.

Statements made by AntonLevay5446 are not uncommon by those who were taught or simply believe that they must use their own conscience. This is true, we must use our own conscience.

However, that conscience must be informed and it must be informed in light of Magisterial teaching, not in the absence of it. This process needs to be happening continuously. It is our obligation to learn what the Church’s position is on certain issues, then to follow it regardless of whether we understand it or not (knowledge is not a prerequisite for faith with an absence of knowledge is true faith). We should then seek understanding and pray for that understanding while remaining faithful to the particular teaching.

To do otherwise, is to commit a deliberate act of disobedience, hence the sin of pride. Also, in rejecting a matter of doctrine or dogma we separate ourselves from the Church, who has had 2000 years to study and give us the spiritual, catechetical milk we need. It simply isn’t being taught in many parishes.

Also, you can never commit a sin to make something right. People will argue that abortion is ok because it makes it right for the girl who would have suffered by losing her “childhood”, or that the baby would have been born into poverty so it is “right” to abort the baby.

Truth is like North. The Catholic Church is the compass needle pointing North. You cannot travel in any other direction and call by its proper name, bending the compass needle to suit your desires. This is simply self-deception and it is playing with fire.

Contrary to what many people today believe, the Church still does teach the last four things: Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

john doran:

i know it’s an encyclical. that doesn’t make the reasoning any more clear or any more clearly intelligible.

I don’t have the name or ISBN for the book, but Fr. John A. Hardon has written a comprehensive on Veritatis Splendor. We are using it in a class being taught by Dr. George DePillo who is holding it at Assumption Grotto in Detroit for parishioners (for the cost of the books and a Rosary for him and his wife - God Bless Him!)

He stated that unless you have a solid theological background, much of Veritatis Splendor will not make sense. Specifically, you need a solid understanding of Moral Theology. Maybe in another thread I can post all of the texts he referenced. He showed us two good books on Moral Theology that would aid the understanding of Veritatis Splendor.

 

[Ham1]

In order to understand Veritatis Splendor, it is helpful to read St. Thomas Aquinas’ questions on human acts in his Summa Theologica. I believe it’s in book II, section 2…or somewhere around there. This is where he provides the framework for what is in Veritatis Splendor.

Also, here is a paper by Dr. Janet Smith that refutes claims by proportionalist theologians and clearly defines the relationship between evil and sin in human acts (john doran, this should help with your question of what evil occurs if no sin is committed):

aodonline.org/aodonline-sqlimages/SHMS/Faculty/SmithJanet/Publications/MoralPhilosophy/MoralTerminology.pdf

I think you’ll see that some of the difficulty is a language problem…we don’t have enough words for “evil” in English.

Hope this helps!

 

[john_doran]

BillP:

I think you’ve got it in this example. Yes, the deaths of you, your wife and child are evil.Yes, you caused the evil. No, you’re not in any way responsible or culpable for it.

Similarly in your example of the man in the chair. The ejaculation of semen outside of its proper evironment is an intrinisic evil. But in that scenario the man would have no responsibility or culpability for it.

right. so then i just don’t care whether some act is “intrinsically evil” - i only care whether it is immoral for me to choose in a certain way.

which was my original point - the “evil” nature of putatively “intrinsically” evil acts is a metaphysical classification of their status as essentially privative, and cannot be a subjective guide to right action, since the only way to form moral judgments is to determine the recitifiability of the alternative choices one is considering. that is, if i can choose to commit an intrinsically evil act in such a way as to be blameless for it (or even praiseworthy in the right circumstances), then its intrinsic evil is morally irrelevant.

 

[Ham1]

john doran:

right. so then i just don’t care whether some act is “intrinsically evil” - i only care whether it is immoral for me to choose in a certain way.

which was my original point - the “evil” nature of putatively “intrinsically” evil acts is a metaphysical classification of their status as essentially privative, and cannot be a subjective guide to right action, since the only way to form moral judgments is to determine the recitifiability of the alternative choices one is considering. that is, if i can choose to commit an intrinsically evil act in such a way as to be blameless for it (or even praiseworthy in the right circumstances), then its intrinsic evil is morally irrelevant.

John,

It is impossible to “choose” to commit an intrinsically evil act in such a way as to be blameless. The only way to have no culpability is to not choose that object or to choose something else which has the side effect of causing the evil act to occur (principle of double effect applies). Intrinsically evil means exactly and object that when chosen is always evil. Basically, such an act is never a legitimate choice of the will. The proportionalist contends that it is never possible to call something intrinsically evil or effectively morally “unchooseable.” As illustrated in the document linked above, the proportionalist position is a serious departure from Catholic moral theology going back to Aquinas.

I think much of this would be clearer to you if you check out the link I posted above. It explains quite well the differences between malum and peccata. When you have a chance to read through it let me know your thoughts.

 

[masterjedi747]

Ham1:

It is impossible to “choose” to commit an intrinsically evil act…

The CHOICE, when made with full knowledge/consent, IS the intrinsically evil action.

The PHYSICAL action itself is not intrinsically evil.
The SPIRITUAL free will decision to turn against God IS. Sin occurs in the will.

The only thing you have to realize is that, for all intents and purposes, the physical action and spiritual choice are deeply interconnected to one another, since you are CHOOSING to commit the action WHEN you DO it. They are not the SAME, but they can be considered so for practical purposes since the subtle distinction is often irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Ham1]

masterjedi747:

The CHOICE, when made with full knowledge/consent, IS the intrinsically evil action.

The PHYSICAL action itself is not intrinsically evil.
The SPIRITUAL free will decision to turn against God IS. Sin occurs in the will.

The only thing you have to realize is that, for all intents and purposes, the physical action and spiritual choice are deeply interconnected to one another, since you are CHOOSING to commit the action WHEN you DO it. They are not the SAME, but they can be considered so for practical purposes since the subtle distinction is often irrelevant to the conversation.

You left off the 2nd half of my sentence which greatly changes the meaning of what I wrote.

Aside from that your contention that “The CHOICE, when made with full knowledge/consent, IS the intrinsically evil action” is simply not in keeping with Catholic moral theology. It seems you are equating “intrinsically evil” with sin or an act of the will. They are not the same. When the Church speaks of “intrinsically evil” it is referring only to the object of the act. Evil (malum) can occur even when not chosen by the will. Please read the link in my post above, it describes this quite well. A good example is abortion. Whether the woman consents or has knowledge of the act, the object of the act is in itself evil or intrinsically evil.

 

[mosher]

Ham1:

You left off the 2nd half of my sentence which greatly changes the meaning of what I wrote.

Aside from that your contention that “The CHOICE, when made with full knowledge/consent, IS the intrinsically evil action” is simply not in keeping with Catholic moral theology. It seems you are equating “intrinsically evil” with sin or an act of the will. They are not the same. When the Church speaks of “intrinsically evil” it is referring only to the object of the act. Evil (malum) can occur even when not chosen by the will. Please read the link in my post above, it describes this quite well. A good example is abortion. Whether the woman consents or has knowledge of the act, the object of the act is in itself evil or intrinsically evil.

Correct - I think what the good Master Jedi might be refering to a not so simple notion concerning the evil that occures in the act of willing even before one actually physically does something. The example given in most ethics books is this:

A man wills to kill another but the other man dies in an accident before the first man has the opportunity to kill the second man. Is the first man guilty of murder? Yes, the act was willed and never revoced and thus the first man is morally culpable for the murder of the second man even though he was unable to consumate the act of murder.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

In Exodus 33: 19 God tells Moses that His beauty will pass in front of him.

Then Moses received the Ten Words or Ten Commandments.

Those words have real being. They flow forth from God’s being.

God is Life: you will not murder.

God is Love: you will not hate.

God is Truth: you will not lie to or trick people.

We are free to fall deeply in love with God’s beauty.

We are free to be happy while enjoy God’s beauty.

 

[Ham1]

Seamus Sully:

In Exodus 33: 19 God tells Moses that His beauty will pass in front of him.

Then Moses received the Ten Words or Ten Commandments.

Those words have real being. They flow forth from God’s being.

God is Life: you will not murder.

God is Love: you will not hate.

God is Truth: you will not lie to or trick people.

We are free to fall deeply in love with God’s beauty.

We are free to be happy while enjoy God’s beauty.

That’s nice. It’s not at all relevant, but it’s nice.

 

[mosher]

Ham1:

That’s nice. It’s not at all relevant, but it’s nice.

If I had been drinking something it would have been all over my keyboard after I read this.