Principles of Morality; Social and Self

[James_S_Saint]

I am not Catholic, so please don’t take this as a lecture or preaching, but rather my thoughts on this matter, open for Catholic response. Thank you.

As I read these threads, I keep seeing people ask if this or that act is a mortal sin or is immoral. The replies seem to often to be a “yes” or “no” type of response.

In all things, where there are two, there are three; “yes”, “no”, and “both, neither, or not applicable” (computers might be binary, but Reality is trinary). In regards to morality, there is social consequence for actions and self consequence for thought or intention, but also the probable consequences of both.

If a person offends another, the action might spread in a “what goes around, comes around” type of fashion or it might spawn endless grudge or possibly cause deception, intentionally or not. These constitute social consequence and can become condemning to all parties and even innocent bystanders.

But even if there are no significant social consequences for an act, there can still be self consequence due to the same principles being reflected within the individual. Each thought leads to another and each desire is in contest with others within the same person.

The environment of social forgiveness (ie. “I won’t step on their toes just because he stepped on mine”) retards negative consequence from negative instigation in a social setting. But this only addresses the “what goes around comes around” concern. There is still “every action leads to another” concern.

Within the individual, a self-forgiving attitude can help to maintain spiritual harmony within the individual, but this does not help with the “every thought or desire leads to another” effect. Too much self-forgiveness can lead to more serious consequence than none at all as it creates a guilt free consciousness, void of self-restraint.

The safeguard against social propagation of consequence due to merely the spreading of ideas and unintentional passions is the “staff” of rational purpose, “why are we here doing anything at all?”

The safeguard against self propagation of internal consequence is devote purpose, “what do I need to do, regardless of what thoughts and desires pop up”.

Thus to establish “forgiveness of sin”, Jesus established the atmosphere of forgiveness and established the purpose of peace through love, thereby saving Man from his own sin and folly and earning for Man forgiveness from God himself. Of course if you don’t maintain what is given, the problem returns.

So when asking a question of morality, it seems that two questions are always being asked simultaneously;

1. Will my actions lead to more disharmony in the world?
2. Will my thoughts or desires lead to more disharmony within myself?

The first question is largely up to the Church. The second question is largely up to the individual asking the question.

Thoughts? :twocents:

 

[bilop]

I am not Catholic, so please don’t take this as a lecture or preaching, but rather my thoughts on this matter, open for Catholic response. Thank you.

As I read these threads, I keep seeing people ask if this or that act is a mortal sin or is immoral. The replies seem to often to be a “yes” or “no” type of response.

In all things, where there are two, there are three; “yes”, “no”, and “both, neither, or not applicable” (computers might be binary, but Reality is trinary). In regards to morality, there is social consequence for actions and self consequence for thought or intention, but also the probable consequences of both.

If a person offends another, the action might spread in a “what goes around, comes around” type of fashion or it might spawn endless grudge or possibly cause deception, intentionally or not. These constitute social consequence and can become condemning to all parties and even innocent bystanders.

But even if there are no significant social consequences for an act, there can still be self consequence due to the same principles being reflected within the individual. Each thought leads to another and each desire is in contest with others within the same person.

The environment of social forgiveness (ie. “I won’t step on their toes just because he stepped on mine”) retards negative consequence from negative instigation in a social setting. But this only addresses the “what goes around comes around” concern. There is still “every action leads to another” concern.

Within the individual, a self-forgiving attitude can help to maintain spiritual harmony within the individual, but this does not help with the “every thought or desire leads to another” effect. Too much self-forgiveness can lead to more serious consequence than none at all as it creates a guilt free consciousness, void of self-restraint.

The safeguard against social propagation of consequence due to merely the spreading of ideas and unintentional passions is the “staff” of rational purpose, “why are we here doing anything at all?”

The safeguard against self propagation of internal consequence is devote purpose, “what do I need to do, regardless of what thoughts and desires pop up”.

Thus to establish “forgiveness of sin”, Jesus established the atmosphere of forgiveness and established the purpose of peace through love, thereby saving Man from his own sin and folly and earning for Man forgiveness from God himself. Of course if you don’t maintain what is given, the problem returns.

So when asking a question of morality, it seems that two questions are always being asked simultaneously;

1. Will my actions lead to more disharmony in the world?
2. Will my thoughts or desires lead to more disharmony within myself?

The first question is largely up to the Church. The second question is largely up to the individual asking the question.

Thoughts? :twocents:

You have to add a third question, actually it should be the first:

1. Will my actions offend God?

Because if they do, they will surely lead to all others sorts of disharmony eventually.

God Bless

 

[James_S_Saint]

I believe if you pray for the answer to the questions I proposed, you will have the answer to yours.

That was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Pug]

Thoughts? :twocents:

I partly interpret your words to be speaking about self-discipline, and how a routine failure to exercise it will potentially affect other choices a person makes. Your choice of the word “harmony”, though, also leads me to think of the idea of integrity, or self-integration. I think we are happier and more solid if we make choices that are somehow consistent with our self/nature/duty/commitments, with who we are, things like that.

I agree we should look at all people (you said the world) when thinking about our actions. It’s not like half the planet is exempt from our proper consideration. I think, though, that disharmony within myself will affect the world, and not just me. If I don’t have integrity/harmony within myself, I can’t share it with others, so I have less to give than I otherwise would. If I break myself inside, so it is dark there, I will harm people as I go through life.

What can break a person inside, some of these things are common to people, so the Church will know about these things (speaking from the perspective of a Christian who believes God has revealed his plan for us in his Son, and that He told the Church about his plan, so the Church knows about what is good for us according to plan, a plan which includes the very nature of how he created us to be).

 

[James_S_Saint]

I can certainly agree with all of that. Self-discipline = moral behavior.

And yes, “harmony within” = thoughts in agreement with heart/emotions, with instincts (the whole spirit).

Such is not easy to achieve, but the consequences will be the same regardless of the difficulty of the problem.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think that your thoughts are not that far off the mark from the Catholic Church’s view of sin.

Each and every sin has both personal and communal/social consequences. This is related to the Church teaching on the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. What hurts one part of the body has it’s ill effects on the rest of the body.

With some sins, the negative social consequences are most obvious (murder, robbery, terrorism, etc.). With other sins, the negative personal consequences are most obvious (sexual sins, gluttony, etc.). But you really cannot separate the two. Human beings are part of the human family. To quote John Donne, “No man is an island.” What we do as individuals, for good or ill, impacts those around us, often in ways we don’t immediately see.

This is why the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Sacrament of Reconciliation makes so much sense (to me at least ). If our sins were merely personal, then perhaps a private confession of sins to God would be fine. But as our sins damage not just our own lives, but the lives of the whole human family, it is only appropriate to be reconciled with God, with the family of God (the Church), and with ourselves through a Sacrament that involves all three.

Maybe I entirely missed the point of your post o), but these are the thoughts that I had as I read the OP.

 

[Pug]

I can certainly agree with all of that. Self-discipline = moral behavior.

And yes, “harmony within” = thoughts in agreement with heart/emotions, with instincts (the whole spirit).

Such is not easy to achieve, but the consequences will be the same regardless of the difficulty of the problem.

Definitely not easy to achieve. There is Catholic teaching related to this, about the disharmony between reasoning and emotion. I’m thinking about the teachings on concupiscence (movements of the sensitive appetite contrary to reason), which you might have heard of in conjunction with the consequences of original sin. So, I think we will always have some struggle with emotions and reason during life.

On the bright side, such struggles are a growth opportunity.