The 5th dubium: the conscience

[Ender]

As for the rest of your comments below rational comment is no longer possible Ender.
If you truly hold a watch 1 minute slow is useless as a guide then you have no common sense which alone tells us when our consistent rationality is no longer reasonable.

I wonder that you seem at times incapable of understanding what I’ve said. Let me try this again: how can you know if your watch is one minute slow? You compare it to another clock that you believe has the correct time, but what if you don’t have anything to compare it to? Without access to another system for accurately measuring time you could only know your watch keeps the correct time or it doesn’t. It is either right or it isn’t, and if it isn’t you can’t know by how much it is off because you have nothing with which to calibrate it.

If you assert the church is wrong in some areas, how could you demonstrate this given that there is no other objectively true standard to compare her to? It’s the same situation as the watch: you cannot know how right or wrong she is because you have no “true” standard to compare her to. She’s either right or not right, and if she’s wrong you can’t know by how much. You can certainly assert your own view of morality based on your personal perspective, but there is no argument that your views would be more accurate than anyone else’s. If you are free to create your own moral world then so are all of us, and while you might disagree with (e.g.) mine you cannot rationally claim yours is morally superior, regardless of what mine is.

If you don’t understand the point I’m making, ask Rau. He seems to have no trouble comprehending me.

Do you think Pope Francis is blameless in what you clearly regard as his erroneous Exhortation and clarifications?

This is another example of the invalid assumptions your comments display. Let me cite a statement I made at the very beginning of the thread:*Although this thread was initiated by comments on AL, I don’t want it to turn into a discussion about that document. *(Post #6)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Yes, God’s law exists “as surely as scientific laws”. But whether we accept or reject “the objective truth” is subjective and a matter of faith and belief whereas scientific laws can be demonstrated and observed.

Agreed.

It is the law inscribed by God on man’s heart that is either heard or not by the conscience, and God’s law cannot err. If there is error, it is man’s error–e.g., from the stifled voice of the law or in the intellect.

Ok…

It is possible when a human being does not comprehend that the act is evil. Consider what is occurring in the Middle East where fanatics believe they are acting in accordance with what is a distorted view of their religion. Evil in the world is a reality. And so is culpability.

I might ask how we know evil is a reality, but we’re on a roll…

“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey…for man has in his heart a law inscribed by God…” (CCC 1776)

This distinction is real. The law inscribed by God is “deep within” man’s conscience but is not the conscience itself. Whether a person clearly hears the voice of God’s law (i.e., that it is not stifled) or obeys it if it is clearly heard is another matter.

I’m a little less comfortable with this, and I’ll go back to what I said before: you understand there to be essentially two levels of “conscience”. The law of God, which is not the conscience, and the conscience which responds to that law. My only concern is that it be clear what is being referred to when we use the word “conscience.”

Invoking “intrinsic evil” in a discussion is in a way like resorting to the “nuclear option”. It is an analytic judgment where the predicate is contained in the subject.

It is a term the church uses. JPII gave a pretty complete explanation of what is meant by it.The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God…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”… (Veritatis splendor 79-80)

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…how can you know if your watch is one minute slow? You compare it to another clock that you believe has the correct time, but what if you don’t have anything to compare it to? Without access to another system for accurately measuring time you could only know your watch keeps the correct time or it doesn’t. It is either right or it isn’t, and if it isn’t you can’t know by how much it is off because you have nothing with which to calibrate it.

Give us a break Ender.
In a world of inaccurate watches we all err.
On what grounds do you believe the Church’s timepiece is perfect at all times?
Simply because the owner says so?

 

[PRmerger]

Give us a break Ender.
In a world of inaccurate watches we all err.
On what grounds do you believe the Church’s timepiece is perfect at all times?
Simply because the owner says so?

Well, yeah.

The Owner did say so, so we believe Him.

What a curious comment from a Catholic.

 

[Ender]

Well, yeah.

The Owner did say so, so we believe Him.

To believe or not to believe, that is the question, but each choice comes with a different set of implications. If we accept that the church is what she claims to be we must also acknowledge that her major doctrines are true, whether it appears that way or not. If we reject the church (all faiths) then we must acknowledge that objective moral truth cannot be known, and we are free to do as we choose in a world where morality does not exist. It’s an all or nothing choice.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, yeah.

The Owner did say so, so we believe Him.

What a curious comment from a Catholic.

Well, gullible you.
Interesting, PRmerger is a sock puppet of Ender.

I 'll wait for Ender’s response thanks, if he is wanting to do so.

When looking to ascertain the correctness of my watch or compass I don’t tend to believe that of others is more accurate than mine simply because they say it is nor because they wear suits or command respect. Especially so when they suggest my compass, which seems to have served me well, is grossly inaccurate in certain locations.

 

[Thomas_White]

I might ask how we know evil is a reality, but we’re on a roll…

Evil acts are a reality. I suppose we could trace this all the way back to the Fallen Angels and to Adam and Eve. However, below you introduce the concept of intrinsic evil, and how that may transcends from the object to the subject (i.e., to the act of a human being) requires an explanation.

I’m a little less comfortable with this, and I’ll go back to what I said before: you understand there to be essentially two levels of “conscience”. The law of God, which is not the conscience, and the conscience which responds to that law. My only concern is that it be clear what is being referred to when we use the word “conscience.”

Maybe this is semantics. In the end, I agree the conscience is one entity.

It is a term the church uses. JPII gave a pretty complete explanation of what is meant by it.The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God…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”… (Veritatis splendor 79-80)

Ender

Yes, but how would the intrinsic evil inherent in the object transfer to the act of the subject? The logic of the argument that it does is dense and opaque.

“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.”

So far, so good. There are the Ten Commandments.

But then there is this: “These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’.”

How does the intrinsically evil object, without explanation, transfer to the subjective act of a person?

 

[Rau]

Well, gullible you.
Interesting, PRmerger is a sock puppet of Ender.

Blue - personal attacks are not appropriate.

 

[Rau]

…Yes, but how would the intrinsic evil inherent in the object transfer to the act of the subject? The logic of the argument that it does is dense and opaque.

“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.”

So far, so good. There are the Ten Commandments.

But then there is this: “These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’.”

How does the intrinsically evil object, without explanation, transfer to the subjective act of a person?

By the deliberate choice of the actor.

 

[Thomas_White]

By the deliberate choice of the actor.

And what if full knowledge and/or deliberate consent are lacking?

 

[Richca]

And what if full knowledge and/or deliberate consent are lacking?

Lack of knowledge and/or full consent does not change the object or species of the action. An intrinsically evil act such as adultery is an act that cannot be ordered to good or made good regardless of circumstances, intention, lack of knowledge, or lack of deliberate or full consent. Ignorance or lack of full or deliberate consent which are the subjective factors in the human action can reduce the culpability of the person committing the act but they cannot make an act that is evil in itself, an intrinsically evil act, good. It remains an evil and bad act regardless of the degree of culpability of the person committing it. This is what is meant by an intrinsically evil act in its object or species, it is objectively evil regardless of the subjective conditions of the person. And for a human action to be a good action, the object, circumstances, and intention must all be good. A lack of goodness in one of these three causes the act to be evil. An intrinsically evil act is evil in its object which results in an evil human act even if the circumstances and intention appear to be good.

 

[Ender]

Yes, but how would the intrinsic evil inherent in the object transfer to the act of the subject? The logic of the argument that it does is dense and opaque.

I think it’s a terminology problem.
1750 *The morality of human acts depends on: *
*- the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

*I understand the “object” in this case to be the observable action: “[The object chosen] is the matter of a human act.” (1751)

But then there is this: “These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’.”

How does the intrinsically evil object, without explanation, transfer to the subjective act of a person?

There are some actions (murder, abortion, euthanasia…) whose matter is such that they can never be in conformity with the good.

Ender

 

[PRmerger]

Well, gullible you.
Interesting, PRmerger is a sock puppet of Ender.

Careful, Blue. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it would be a shame for you to be banned.

Making false accusations is not part of the culture here.

I 'll wait for Ender’s response thanks, if he is wanting to do so.

Surely you realize that this is a…forum.

As such, all are welcome to refute your errors.

If you want a private discussion, there’s a venue for that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Careful, Blue. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it would be a shame for you to be banned.

Careful PRmerger your stock intimidatory phrases are tiresome .

Let me rephrase the tongue in cheek comment in words you won’t get wrong:
“I did not know you were an alter-ego of Ender?”

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net..._Puppet.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090707045712
Sock Puppet: No, its isn’t Ender, it isn’t PRmerger, its …well, a puppet from a sock.

Surely you realize that this is a…forum.
As such, all are welcome to refute your errors.
If you want a private discussion, there’s a venue for that.

Surely you realise that when one comes into the lounge half way through a movie nobody has an obligation to bring you up to speed on your half-cocked understandings of what is going on. As such you are welcome here but I am not going to bring you up to speed so you can fruitfully question and engage sorry.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Lack of knowledge and/or full consent does not change the object or species of the action. An intrinsically evil act such as adultery is an act that cannot be ordered to good or made good regardless of circumstances, intention, lack of knowledge, or lack of deliberate or full consent. Ignorance or lack of full or deliberate consent which are the subjective factors in the human action can reduce the culpability of the person committing the act but they cannot make an act that is evil in itself, an intrinsically evil act, good. It remains an evil and bad act regardless of the degree of culpability of the person committing it. This is what is meant by an intrinsically evil act in its object or species, it is objectively evil regardless of the subjective conditions of the person. And for a human action to be a good action, the object, circumstances, and intention must all be good. A lack of goodness in one of these three causes the act to be evil. An intrinsically evil act is evil in its object which results in an evil human act even if the circumstances and intention appear to be good.

An intrinsically evil act is evil in its object which results in an evil human act even if the circumstances and intention appear to be good

No, you have perhaps too quickly conflated the object component of the** human act** with the “human act” itself.

An actual “human act” has three components: object (matter), subject (intention) and circumstances.

The “intrinsic evil” is clearly predicated of the object (ie the matter). In other words the object is so gravely disordered/evil (malum poenae) that if it is freely intended and understood by the agent (the subject) then the act as a whole becomes a culpable mortal sin, a moral evil (malum culpae).

Now the object by definition abstracts away from issues of consent/knowledge which is in the subject.

Now the matter/object is specified in the Commandments.
Lets take “adultery”.

In English “adultery” is also abstracted from any internal reference to understanding or consenting to the behaviour. If you sleepwalk to your wife’s sister’s bedroom and she is willing then you have still committed adultery even without really knowing or consenting.
So the word “adultery” well describes the matter of a potentially complete “human act”.
Here we have intrinsic object evil (malum poenae).

Next we have to decide whether the actual “adultery” behaviour in question is really a complete “human act”. That is why I just said “potentially”.

This is where “intention” (the subject component of a “human act”) comes into play.
If the object is truly understood and consented to (ie “intended”) adultery then bingo we have a complete human act which must therefore be a mortal sin. We may also call this actual sin an example of intrinsic moral evil, intrinsic moral fault (malum culpae).

BUT, if the agent was sleep-walking then there is no (or little) subjective involvement.
Bingo, venial sin or even no moral fault at all. This is not properly called a “human act”. Subjective engagement through understanding and consent must be present if we are to call any behaviour a “human act.”
Therefore no intrinsic moral evil (no malum culpae) is present here. Of course intrinsic object evil is still present (malum poenae).

I have left out the circumstances component of a complete “human act” for clarity…it changes little of the above analysis.

Now you said “An intrinsically evil act (adultery?) is evil in its object which results in an evil human act …”

This is not always true. Sometimes a “human act” is not present. if it isn’t present there is no intention, either good or bad. In which case the “adultery” is still properly called adultery but it is not “an act” (as in “human act”). Nor can it be called an “intrinsically evil human act.” It can of course be called intrinsically evil “behaviour”, which many people also confusedly also call “an act”. Yet it is not a “human act”.

So I would suggest you really should have said:
“An intrinsically evil behaviour (adultery?) is evil in its object which results in an intrinsically evil human act when full understanding and intent is present…”

 

[Rau]

A bit like understanding the difference between falling out the 50th floor window to one’s death and suicide. I don’t think (moral) confusion is likely even allowing for everyday word meanings.

 

[Ginny89]

Give us a break Ender.
In a world of inaccurate watches we all err.
On what grounds do you believe the Church’s timepiece is perfect at all times?
Simply because the owner says so?

Perhaps you have forgotten the thing called faith?

Yes. We BELIEVE the church when she tells us she is infallible and the precise circumscriptions for this infallibility. We BELIEVE the Apostles when they tell us they witnessed Christ resurrected and when they transmit to us the words and deeds of this sacred figure they followed for three years. We BELIEVE these words and deeds that tell us that Christ is divine, God incarnate. We BELIEVE Moses when he tells us that God spoke to him through a burning bush and introduced himself to him as YHWH and transmitted to him the law. Ditto all the sacred writers and prophets of old. WE BELIEVE!!!

Have you ever heard of the Apostles creed? Do you say it at mass? Were you baptized? Have you ever made a profession of faith? If you have, then you should know that we BELIEVE in the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH and it is called faith.

It honestly seems that you would prefer Budhism to a revelation-based religion like Judaism and Christianity which require faith. Buddhists don’t believe in objectivity in the same sense we do because truth is only that which you experience for yourself through meditation. You know it is true because you have SEEN for yourself that it is true. There is no room for faith or revelation. But that is not Christianity or Judaism. In Christianity, reason takes you up to a certain edge and then you jump with hope that God is waiting to catch you on the other side. That is the nature of faith, Blue.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Perhaps you have forgotten the thing called faith?

Yes. We BELIEVE the church when she tells us she is infallible and the precise circumscriptions for this infallibility. We BELIEVE the Apostles when they tell us they witnessed Christ resurrected and when they transmit to us the words and deeds of this sacred figure they followed for three years. We BELIEVE these words and deeds that tell us that Christ is divine, God incarnate. We BELIEVE Moses when he tells us that God spoke to him through a burning bush and introduced himself to him as YHWH and transmitted to him the law. Ditto all the sacred writers and prophets of old. WE BELIEVE!!!

Have you ever heard of the Apostles creed? Do you say it at mass? Were you baptized? Have you ever made a profession of faith? If you have, then you should know that we BELIEVE in the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH and it is called faith.

It honestly seems that you would prefer Budhism to a revelation-based religion like Judaism and Christianity which require faith. Buddhists don’t believe in objectivity in the same sense we do because truth is only that which you experience for yourself through meditation. You know it is true because you have SEEN for yourself that it is true. There is no room for faith or revelation. But that is not Christianity or Judaism. In Christianity, reason takes you up to a certain edge and then you jump with hope that God is waiting to catch you on the other side. That is the nature of faith, Blue.

The same “natural” critical human faculties (eg reason, conscience) that played a major role in choosing the religion I profess still play a major role in my continued happy dwelling in the barque of Peter.

For you an Ender it seems you happily powered those faculties down, threw in a bag of mothballs, clanged the iron door shut, locked it and gave the keys to your cult leader.

And all because you “just believe” his compass is more accurate than yours, all the time, in every place. And his communications to you of such things will always be easily understood and without ambiguity for all time, and he knows where you are at all time too so you can get specific, tailer made directions even in difficult terrain .

And where does all this additional certitude over and above the alleged better accuracy of his personal compass come from…well it must be true because cult leader said so, and everybody else who joined like me says so too.

You might call that faith, I think Jesus called this attitude to “faith” the blind leading the blind.
My faith is quite different from the above, safe, snug and simple faith though it sounds attractive.

I can well understand why you would see no other saving merits in belonging to the Catholic Church if it still had the same “fallible” and imperfectly communicated religious teachings as Judaism, Protestantism or Orthodox Catholicism.

Strange how you think the Judaic compass is still of use even though they make no claims to infallibility re perfectly accurately communicating religious truth.

Oh, remind me where Jesus allegedly told us that the Pope when speaking ex cathedral on morals does so infallibly? And if those texts are ambiguous (as Protestantism and Orthodox Catholics seem to have overlooked them) who is the one who can infallibly clear that up for us?

 

[Thomas_White]

Lack of knowledge and/or full consent does not change the object or species of the action. An intrinsically evil act such as adultery is an act that cannot be ordered to good or made good regardless of circumstances, intention, lack of knowledge, or lack of deliberate or full consent. Ignorance or lack of full or deliberate consent which are the subjective factors in the human action can reduce the culpability of the person committing the act but they cannot make an act that is evil in itself, an intrinsically evil act, good. It remains an evil and bad act regardless of the degree of culpability of the person committing it. This is what is meant by an intrinsically evil act in its object or species, it is objectively evil regardless of the subjective conditions of the person. And for a human action to be a good action, the object, circumstances, and intention must all be good. A lack of goodness in one of these three causes the act to be evil. An intrinsically evil act is evil in its object which results in an evil human act even if the circumstances and intention appear to be good.

This is not persuasive. And I quote from your comment:

“An intrinsically evil act such as adultery is an act that cannot be ordered to good or made good regardless of circumstances, intention, lack of knowledge, or lack of deliberate or full consent.”

“Ignorance or lack of full or deliberate consent which are the subjective factors in the human action can reduce the culpability of the person committing the act…”

The teaching is that it is the object that not cannot be ordered to good or made good and is what is intrinsically evil (Veritatis splendor, 79-80). You have made the common error of confusing object and subject.

From Veritatis splendor:

"Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which by their nature are ‘incapable of being ordered to God’…"

"These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’ ".

The conclusion does not seem to logically follow from the premise.

And there is this: “God looked at everything he had made, and found it very good” (Genesis 1:31). How then may an object, by it nature, be "incapable of being ordered to the good? What is such an object? Could it be an evil thing God made? Or is it a factor in the act of a person? Veritatis splendor says intrinsic evil is the acts that "have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’ ", e.g., abortion, murder and adultery. Thus, the intrinsic evil is not in an external object at all, since object in this sense means the objective (intent) of the act, which is internal and subjective. In other words, a human being’s partner in an act of adultery is not him/herself intrinsically evil. Intrinsic evil is an abstract concept, a component of the act, and if there remain the teaching concerning full knowledge and deliberate consent, how for example would adultery differ from any other sin?

Is it not what Augustine said, that evil is man’s misuse of the good? Adultery then would be the misuse of an act that God ordered to the good–an act necessary for the preservation of his Creation.

 

[Richca]

So I would suggest you really should have said:
“An intrinsically evil behaviour (adultery?) is evil in its object which results in an intrinsically evil human act when full understanding and intent is present…”

Full understanding is not requisite for a human action to be called a ‘human action.’ For the reason can be in error or false and this does not simply deprive one of the voluntariness of their action (and the moral quality of the action as good or evil) as neither does ignorance because ignorance can be voluntary.