Significant other suddenly reveals unusual moral beliefs

[sealabeag]

It’s a more common view nowadays than you’d expect. More and more proponents of abortion are allowing the “it’s not a baby/human being” argument to fall away and are moving on to straight up acknowledging that it’s a human being but providing arguments why abortion is still acceptable.
This issue is extremely central to Catholic morality and if your girlfriend holds this view, I would begin by having a very open discussion about where you both stand in terms of your faith. What other elements if any of Church teaching does she disagree with?
Our faith should be the most important thing in our lives - more important than our family, friends, spouse or girlfriend. Our spouse should help us become a saint and get to Heaven - if your spouse is not fully in communion with the Church’s teaching and maybe struggling with her faith, you will find marriage much more difficult if you are trying to be a faithful Catholic. I’d consider this very well.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

a young boy approaches some soldiers with an explosive device.

I believe better of your intellect than to imagine you can’t see the difference between self defence against a child soldier actively trying to commit murder-suicide, and an innocent child passively taking no action against you at all, just living (but whose innocent continued life has become an inconvenience to your own).

If anything, a closer analogy might be the (awful) ‘Saw’ movies. Do you choose to mutilate an innocent person to death, to escape a deadly situation yourself? Or do you accept that neither of you put the other in this situation and neither has the right to kill the other to get oneself out of it?

Sometimes life deals us a hand that says “today we die”. We all die one day. Better to die than to become a murderor of innocents. That’s actually a pretty good way to die, deliberately choosing not to murder an innocent to cling to our own life.

It’s pretty similar in that both adult(s) and child will die unless you kill the child. And I wouldn’t consider the child to be a guilty party in this scenario. He’d be an innocent child caught up in a horrifying situation through no fault of his own.

As I said, could I do it? Possibly not. But…if it were my family instead of the soldiers then I’d definitely do it. Without doubt. And let God be my judge.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

She’s got some screwed-up views. I’m surprised she took 1.5 years to tell you.
I’d break up with her. Heaven only knows what other strange ideas she has that she’s not sharing with you.
I could maybe understand the ectopic pregnancy and rape business, as these are the “hard cases that make bad law”, but any adult who advocates killing a 4-year-old is not someone I’d want to have children with. Your average good kind adult, even if not Catholic, would want to save the young child.

 

[MNathaniel]

It’s pretty similar in that both adult(s) and child will die unless you kill the child.

Sure, and calcium and helium are similar in that they both have 2 valence electrons.

What’s your point?

Mushing together ideas as if similarities are all that exist, and differences are irrelevant, doesn’t move a conversation forward. It only blurs lines instead of enhancing our vision with a clearer focus of where real lines are.

If you insist on blurring up your eyes and seeing no difference between a suicide bomber intentionally rushing a crowd, and a helpless baby simply ‘living’ until someone decides to directly kill him or her, I can’t help you. But I won’t join you in it.

 

[neophyte]

Why on earth would you seek the views of absolute strangers on your relationship

Because they’re less likely to be blinded by their emotional investment in the relationship?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s pretty similar in that both adult(s) and child will die unless you kill the child.

Sure, and calcium and helium are similar in that they both have 2 valence electrons.

What’s your point?

Mushing together ideas as if similarities are all that exist, and differences are irrelevant, doesn’t move a conversation forward. It only blurs lines instead of enhancing our vision with a clearer focus of where real lines are.

If you insist on blurring up your eyes and seeing no difference between a suicide bomber intentionally rushing a crowd, and a helpless baby simply ‘living’ until someone decides to directly kill him or her, I can’t help you. But I won’t join you in it.

Obviously there are differences in the way that you describe it. But I just wanted to show that to comply with the conditions specified, namely adult and child were going to die anyway and to save the adult(s) one had to kill the child, one could come up with a scenario.

These questions are hypothetical. What the op and his girl were discussing was hypothetical. You can’t reject my hypothetical because it doesn’t match yours.

 

[John9]

Because they’re less likely to be blinded by their emotional investment in the relationship?

Then I guess the question becomes ‘Why on earth would you seek the views of people lacking emotional investment on something as significant as your relationship?’

 

[neophyte]

Then I guess the question becomes ‘Why on earth would you seek the views of people lacking emotional investment on something as significant as your relationship?’

That’s not at all the question that derives from what I said.

 

[Jen7]

Oh just noticed, the thought experiment was that both the adult and four year old were dying… still though, nothing mentioned about why the child should have to die for the adult and not vice versa

Yeah that seems strange to me. And if I may say so, it sounds very non-maternal. It seems more disturbing to me that a woman is saying this than of it were a man. Men can be, how shall I say this… a bit theoretical and anticeptic and impersonal in their thought experiments. But a woman saying the child should go ahead and die so the ill adult can live a little longer? I mean… what about when you have a baby? If a 4 year old can die for an adult, should a newborn cry alone all night so Mama can sleep? What if the newborn is genuinely hungry and needs to eat? Do we ignore so Mama gets her beauty sleep? Lots of conversations need to happen here…

 

[Freddy]

MNathaniel:

Oh just noticed, the thought experiment was that both the adult and four year old were dying… still though, nothing mentioned about why the child should have to die for the adult and not vice versa

Yeah that seems strange to me. And if I may say so, it sounds very non-maternal. It seems more disturbing to me that a woman is saying this than of it were a man. Men can be, how shall I say this… a bit theoretical and anticeptic and impersonal in their thought experiments. But a woman saying the child should go ahead and die so the ill adult can live a little longer? I mean… what about when you have a baby? If a 4 year old can die for an adult, should a newborn cry alone all night so Mama can sleep? What if the newborn is genuinely hungry and needs to eat? Do we ignore so Mama gets her beauty sleep? Lots of conversations need to happen here…

I think that it’s very dangerous to extrapolate too far from an extreme hypothetical to more mundane matters. I don’t think it’s valid going from the American Sniper situation to ‘Well, I guess she’d let the child starve if she needed some beauty sleep’.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

In these times of poor catechesis, and a moral consensus in the larger society that consists basically of “situation ethics, and the end justifies the means, at least where it involves hard cases”, I don’t find it surprising that this person would have a “blind spot” about this. I knew someone, raised in a very strict Catholic home, who nevertheless could not see anything wrong with lying to achieve her ends. It was like a lifestyle accessory with her. She has done quite well in life, impressive career, so evidently her “love of lying” (and that’s what it was) didn’t cause her any huge problems in life. I’ve seen other people who take pride in their ability to lie effectively.

There are people who do, indeed, have “superego lacunae”, which is a fancy way of saying that they have consciences like Swiss cheese. Sounds like that is what is wrong with the woman we’re discussing here.

This is a TLR if there were ever such a thing, but it might make for some interesting reading about lying in particular, and seeking a created good in general (and, yes, I realize this thread is not about lying, but it is about a disconnect between one’s presumed morality and their way of thinking about one particular moral issue):

https://scholarlycommons.law.northw...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3670&context=jclc

 

[FiveLinden]

a moral consensus in the larger society that consists basically of “situation ethics, and the end justifies the means, at least where it involves hard cases”,

I absolutely agree with you about the ‘moral consensus’.

As you know I am a part of that consensus. I’d say ‘the end may justify the means depending on circumstances’. I do not agree with the position that ‘the end always justifies the means’. That is not situation ethics. It is no ethics at all.

I think your use of the psychological term ‘superego lacunae’ in relation to the person we are discussing cannot be reasonably justified on the evidence in this thread. She simply leans towards situation ethics. Disagreeing with the Catholic position is not a pathological state of mind. It’s a disagreement. It is not a psychiatric condition.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

a moral consensus in the larger society that consists basically of “situation ethics, and the end justifies the means, at least where it involves hard cases”,

I absolutely agree with you about the ‘moral consensus’.

As you know I am a part of that consensus. I’d say ‘the end may justify the means depending on circumstances’. I do not agree with the position that ‘the end always justifies the means’. That is not situation ethics. It is no ethics at all.

I think your use of the psychological term ‘superego lacunae’ in relation to the person we are discussing cannot be reasonably justified on the evidence in this thread. She simply leans towards situation ethics. Disagreeing with the Catholic position is not a pathological state of mind. It’s a disagreement. It is not a psychiatric condition.

Then perhaps a better way to put it would be “superego lacunae where a Catholic’s overall understanding and practice of moral theology is concerned”, put another way, you have a faithful Catholic, but on this one particular thing — whether it’s lying or abortion in hard cases — they have a “Swiss cheese hole in their conscience” that is hard to understand in light of the totality of what they say they believe.

“The end justifies the means depending on circumstances” is the default moral consensus of much of the rest of the world outside of faithful, doctrinally orthodox Catholic Christendom. That is why, sometimes, the only consolation the Church can offer is to practice heroism and sacrifice in the here and now, in pursuit of the crown of sanctity in the next life.

 

[Jen7]

I think that it’s very dangerous to extrapolate too far from an extreme hypothetical to more mundane matters. I don’t think it’s valid going from the American Sniper situation to ‘Well, I guess she’d let the child starve if she needed some beauty sleep’.

I just think it’s worth a conversation. Seeing the disconnect might even help her view the hypothetical case differently.

 

[FiveLinden]

“The end justifies the means depending on circumstances” is the default moral consensus of much of the rest of the world outside of faithful, doctrinally orthodox Catholic Christendom. That is why, sometimes, the only consolation the Church can offer is to practice heroism and sacrifice in the here and now, in pursuit of the crown of sanctity in the next life.

This seems to me to be a consistent position for. Catholic to take. But on moral issues such as the one being discussed here (abortion) Catholics and the pro-life movement generally seem to stop short of open advocacy of the full Catholic position. For example I have asked on CAF previously if anyone can find a Catholic politician in the US who has attempted to bring in legislation that would impose the full Catholic position on abortion. No one came up with one. The reason of course is practical politics - it’s easier to win a vote on so-called ‘partial birth abortion’ than on preventing the direct abortion of ectopic pregnancy or banning the morning-after pill.

I can live with ‘Swiss cheese hole in their conscience’ but still think the psychological term is unfair on the person we have been discussing.

As you know I am interested in belief. It seems to me that the expectation that beliefs will be consistent is more of a hope (of some) than an observation. People believe all sorts of things that are obviously not true and cognitive dissonance is virtually universal. I have not thought much about this but I can’t immediately see an evolutionary (reproductive) advantage to consistency on belief. I can see an advantage of many inconsistencies such as 'killing is bad when it is done to one of my group but not when done to a member of a competing group". So you may be up against human nature (in the scientific sense).

Thanks for discussing this with me.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

“The end justifies the means depending on circumstances” is the default moral consensus of much of the rest of the world outside of faithful, doctrinally orthodox Catholic Christendom. That is why, sometimes, the only consolation the Church can offer is to practice heroism and sacrifice in the here and now, in pursuit of the crown of sanctity in the next life.

This seems to me to be a consistent position for. Catholic to take. But on moral issues such as the one being discussed here (abortion) Catholics and the pro-life movement generally seem to stop short of open advocacy of the full Catholic position. For example I have asked on CAF previously if anyone can find a Catholic politician in the US who has attempted to bring in legislation that would impose the full Catholic position on abortion. No one came up with one. The reason of course is practical politics - it’s easier to win a vote on so-called ‘partial birth abortion’ than on preventing the direct abortion of ectopic pregnancy or banning the morning-after pill.

That is precisely the reason. Nobody except fully orthodox, faithful Catholics, and whatever relatively small number of evangelicals, and others whose views correspond with Catholic teaching, may exist, would ever support such a law. The Church has told us that we may accept “half-measures” as an interim measure — even if that “interim” period has to endure until the entire nation converts to our point of view (something that will probably never come this side of the Three Days of Darkness or even the parousia itself) — to save the babies we can save, while being painfully and tragically aware that we can’t get the body politic to outlaw all abortions just yet. It’s a deal with the devil (figuratively speaking) that stinks on ice, but it is the lesser of two evils, without being intrinsically evil itself.

I would note, though, that the “morning-after pill” does not cause abortion, or at least that’s what we are told. If we are being told the truth, it is an extreme method of contraception, and could only be morally justified where an unjust aggressor (such as a rapist) were involved, but that’s all it is. I remain skeptical.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

As you know I am interested in belief. It seems to me that the expectation that beliefs will be consistent is more of a hope (of some) than an observation. People believe all sorts of things that are obviously not true and cognitive dissonance is virtually universal. I have not thought much about this but I can’t immediately see an evolutionary (reproductive) advantage to consistency on belief. I can see an advantage of many inconsistencies such as 'killing is bad when it is done to one of my group but not when done to a member of a competing group". So you may be up against human nature (in the scientific sense).

And there probably isn’t any sort of temporal advantage to consistency of belief. From the Catholic point of view, we are dealing with realities both of natural and of revealed religion, not merely of practical utility in the natural world. And we are not utilitarians. That is a big part of what puts us at odds with the world.

 

[jeannetherese]

She said that when two people are dying, it’s better for one person to die and not two, even if it involves directly killing one.

What does she do with “Thou shalt not kill”. Is she not concerned about eternal damnation?

 

[Jen7]

I would note, though, that the “morning-after pill” does not cause abortion, or at least that’s what we are told.

By whom? Any nurse knows the pill works by preventing implantation. There is no pill that prevents fertilization.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I would note, though, that the “morning-after pill” does not cause abortion, or at least that’s what we are told.

By whom? Any nurse knows the pill works by preventing implantation. There is no pill that prevents fertilization.

By the medical establishment and by the mainstream media.

Nobody wants to believe that convenient, efficient pharmaceuticals could be abortifacient. For one thing, that makes it a whole lot harder for Jane Catholic to say “contraception is a matter between me and my own conscience, Father X in my high school religion class told me so, and that’s the last time I ever gave it any thought”.

I don’t know about anybody else, but I had a “Father X”. He is now banned from the priesthood for life (though, for some reason, not laicized), for reasons that have nothing to do with contraception.