Relativity in the modern world

[bobzills]

Where is this declaration of the American bishops? Can I trouble you for a link?

People on this forum have declared that contraception is intrinsically wrong. If so, then why do the American bishops approve its use relative to a certain situation. Does that not indicate that whether contraception is right or wrong is relative to the situation at hand and it is not intrinsically wrong as people here have stated? I don;t see how contraception can be intrinsically wrong and at the same time approved in a certain case unless we are dealing with relativity in the modern world here?
usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml
“A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm.”
usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml
“Hospitals can offer rape victims treatments that are truly contraceptive and address their other needs with compassion and respect.”
origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298310,00.html
“CATHOLIC BISHOPS AGREE TO LET HOSPITALS GIVE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION TO RAPE VICTIMS”
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070928/ai_n21025189/
“Catholic bishops allow contraception after rape”

 

[Shike]

People on this forum have declared that contraception is intrinsically wrong. If so, then why do the American bishops approve its use relative to a certain situation. Does that not indicate that whether contraception is right or wrong is relative to the situation at hand and it is not intrinsically wrong as people here have stated?

The first step is to make sure that the situation where “People on this forum have declared that contraception is intrinsically wrong” is the same situation that the American bishops are referring to. Could it be that rape and consentual sex are two very different situations?

To better illustrate; there are three components to help determine the moral nature of a situation: the act itself, the motive, and the circumstances. Saying that contraception is intrinsically evil is saying that the motive and the circumstances aren’t necessary in determining the sinful nature of the situation; ie this means that the act itself is intrinsically evil.

Are rape and consentual sexual intercourse two different acts?

I’m not 100% sure on the whole issue. But I am glad at least to know that the American Bishops aren’t promoting any abortifacient stuff to happen.

I don;t see how contraception can be intrinsically wrong and at the same time approved in a certain case unless we are dealing with relativity in the modern world here?

What you have stumbled upon is an apparent or actual contradiction. Therefore, it might be best for you to use the word “relativism”. “Relativity” is a theory of Einstein.

 

[bobzills]

The first step is to make sure that the situation where “People on this forum have declared that contraception is intrinsically wrong” is the same situation that the American bishops are referring to. Could it be that rape and consentual sex are two very different situations?

To better illustrate; there are three components to help determine the moral nature of a situation: the act itself, the motive, and the circumstances. Saying that contraception is intrinsically evil is saying that the motive and the circumstances aren’t necessary in determining the sinful nature of the situation; ie this means that the act itself is intrinsically evil.

Are rape and consentual sexual intercourse two different acts?

I’m not 100% sure on the whole issue. But I am glad at least to know that the American Bishops aren’t promoting any abortifacient stuff to happen.

What you have stumbled upon is an apparent or actual contradiction. Therefore, it might be best for you to use the word “relativism”. “Relativity” is a theory of Einstein.

The term relativity is oftentimes used with reference to the special or general theory of Einstein. However, there is no law which says that the term relativity must be restricted to the theory of Einstein. In fact, the dictionary gives other areas and situations where the term may be used.
1.The quality or state of being relative.
2. A state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another
And once again if contraception is intrinsically wrong, then why is it permissable to use it on rape victims? Isn’t this an example of something being right or wrong relative to the given situation or circumstances?

 

[Shike]

The term relativity is oftentimes used with reference to the special or general theory of Einstein. However, there is no law which says that the term relativity must be restricted to the theory of Einstein. In fact, the dictionary gives other areas and situations where the term may be used.
1.The quality or state of being relative.
2. A state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another
And once again if contraception is intrinsically wrong, then why is it permissable to use it on rape victims? Isn’t this an example of something being right or wrong relative to the given situation or circumstances?

You apparently didn’t read my post…
Your two main points didn’t address my concerns, but so what right?
Relativity, or relative or whatever… in the way you are using it (on occasion)… doesn’t mean that morality is subjective (which you did claim!!!).
And in answer to your question about contraception and rape victims… read my post.

But the important thing to remember… is that morallity is not subjective just because the moral right or wrongness is dependent (relative if you will) to certain circumstances. BUT not all situations are like that, there does exist intrinsic evils that do not depend on circumstances or motives.

 

[bobzills]

The first step is to make sure that the situation where “People on this forum have declared that contraception is intrinsically wrong” is the same situation that the American bishops are referring to. Could it be that rape and consentual sex are two very different situations?.

Well, doesn’t this imply that whether or not contraception is wrong does indeed depend on the situation in which it is used?

 

[Shike]

Well, doesn’t this imply that whether or not contraception is wrong does indeed depend on the situation in which it is used?

Trivially, yes.

We could say, trivially, that the moral character of contraception does indeed depend on the situation in which it is used… for instance if you used a condom to fix your raft in the middle of the ocean–that would be good, no? Or if you used a condom to traffic drugs–that would be bad, no?

But that’s really not what contraception is used for. The main purpose is to use contraception to have sex but avoid any consequence of new life; that’s the act of contraception as normally understood.

That’s why I think that it’s important for us to see if there’s an important difference between rape and consentual sex and if that jives with the purpose of contraception.

So when someone says contraception is intrinsically evil, they mean from the purpose (viewpoint) of contraception, any motive or circumstance will not change the act to good. For instance, a motive like “we’re not ready for kids yet” or a circumstance such as “we’re not married yet”.

Does this shed any light on the situation?

peace,
Michael

 

[Shike]

We can talk about intrinsic evils, it makes sense.

For instance, murder is an act that is always and everywhere wrong; but make sure first that you’re talking about murder and not killing. No circumstance or motive changes the moral character of murder from bad to good. For instance, a motive like “I really wanted to” or a circumstance such as “he stole my ipod”.

peace,
Michael

 

[bobzills]

So when someone says contraception is intrinsically evil, they mean from the purpose (viewpoint) of contraception, any motive or circumstance will not change the act to good.

That seems to me to contradict the authentic teaching of the American bishops who say that it is OK in the circumstance and situation of a rape victim.

 

[bobzills]

We can talk about intrinsic evils, it makes sense.

For instance, murder is an act that is always and everywhere wrong; but make sure first that you’re talking about murder and not killing. No circumstance or motive changes the moral character of murder from bad to good. For instance, a motive like “I really wanted to” or a circumstance such as “he stole my ipod”.

peace,
Michael

However, by using the work murder, you have set up the circumstances and situation so that killing will be wrong. There are circumstances which we can consider which will make killing OK.

 

[Shike]

That seems to me to contradict the authentic teaching of the American bishops who say that it is OK in the circumstance and situation of a rape victim.

You missed my whole point; is rape the same act as consentual sex. Think about that, and then think about what contraception is. There is a specific motive inherent in the definition of contraception.

However, by using the work murder, you have set up the circumstances and situation so that killing will be wrong. There are circumstances which we can consider which will make killing OK.

Correct, but cannot we talk about murder as an act itself? Yes, murder has the circumstances of the killing of an innocent person… but it is intrinsic to the definition of the act. Any motive or circumstance relative to the definiton will not change the moral character from wrong to right.

 

[4Horsemen]

In the case of Madoff, there are honest hedge funds and dishonest hedge funds. Once again it is relative to the situation and relative to the way in which the hedge fund is operated.,

But you didn’t respond to the idea of putting “child abuse” (for example, or “spousal abuse”) in place of murder. I would say “child abuse” is absolutely evil, but that courts of law make judgments according to motive and circumstances. Yet that doesn’t diminish the justification for calling “child abuse” an objective moral evil, which could result in the even greater moral evil of murder.

 

[bobzills]

But you didn’t respond to the idea of putting “child abuse” (for example, or “spousal abuse”) in place of murder. I would say “child abuse” is absolutely evil, but that courts of law make judgments according to motive and circumstances. Yet that doesn’t diminish the justification for calling “child abuse” an objective moral evil, which could result in the even greater moral evil of murder.

Some people, especially those in the pay of governmental agencies, interpret disciplining a child as child abuse and do not agree with the Biblical injunction: Spare the rod and spoil the child. So what is and what is not child abuse will vary depending on the circumstances, the situation, the laws, and the customs of the area.

 

[InMariesGrace]

---

I don’t think that this is true. From what I read contraception can be right relative to the situation at hand. For example, it the case of rape, the American bishops have declared that it is acceptable for the victim to use contraception in that case. So once again, we have the morality of the action determined relative to the circumstances surrounding it.

If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.2
usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml

A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. *It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.*19 (emphasis added)
usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml#partone

so contraception is permissible, only in the case of rape or incest I think, as long as the contraception doesn’t harm a newly formed child…

Peace of Christ!

 

[bobzills]

---

If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.2
usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml

A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.19 (emphasis added)
usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml#partone

so contraception is permissible, only in the case of rape or incest I think, as long as the contraception doesn’t harm a newly formed child…

Peace of Christ!

Yes. There are circumstances relative to a particular situation, where contraception is permissable, and so it would not be correct to say that contraception is intrinsically wrong and cannot be used under any conditions.

 

[Shike]

Yes. There are circumstances relative to a particular situation, where contraception is permissable, and so it would not be correct to say that contraception is intrinsically wrong and cannot be used under any conditions.

Right. Like in the case of murder where the person killed isn’t innocent. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that murder is intrinsically wrong.

Don’t confuse the object with the act.