You sidestepped the issue. Why did you do that?
Your remarks gave civil law a foundational basis for moral judgments. Aquinas pointed out that your remarks de facto condoned slavery, because slavery was once sanctioned by the law. Your own words caused you a problem.
Can you address that problem?
We’ve crossed paths before, and I know I’m a slow learner, but I’m struggling to figure out what you’re talking about. I’m clueless.
First off, we seem to be using the word “judging” in totally different ways. Let’s say we take a current case: The policewoman in Dallas who walked into the wrong apartment and shot the occupant dead. Is it against the law to open the door to someone’s apartment and shoot them? Why yes, it is. So she broke the law, was “judged” by the court, and found guilty. She will go to prison. She broke the law. But can I “judge” what was in her mind? Did she really intend to kill the guy? Was her brain foggy for some reason? Who knows? And that’s my point. We don’t know what’s in her mind. And there is no way for us to know. And at this point SHE probably doesn’t know. Only God knows. So no: I can’t “judge” her motivation (or anyone’s motivation for anything). But can someone be “judged” if they commit a crime? Sure. Two different things.
So let’s go back to your hypothetical: people doing bad things that are NOT illegal at the time. Should I “judge” them? No—as I said–I cannot read their minds. I don’t know their intent, the degree of willingness in their actions, etc. I certainly can say “That’s a bad thing to do. I wouldn’t do it. I think it should be made illegal.” I’m not sure how that’s “sidestepping the issue.” What’s the issue??
As for Aquinas and de facto condoning something that’s legal, I’m sorry, but I don’'t follow you or Aquinas or your logic–or lack thereof. Are you saying that if I say “Action X is legal.” I’m somehow condoning it? I’m simply stating a fact. If I said (which I am NOT saying, and never have said) “Action X is legal, and therefore I think it is a good thing to do,” then yes, I’m condoning it. Why can’t I say “Action X is legal. But I don’t think it’s a good thing to do.” Or do you want me to say “Action X is legal, but I would throw Mr. Smith in jail because he did Action X and I personally think it’s wrong?” That’s nonsense. Vigilanteeism.
Obviously (to me anyway), some laws are good in the sense that they make bad behavior illegal. (Murder = illegal) Some laws are sort of neutral because they take actions that are neither good nor bad in themselves and make them illegal (You can’t walk on the sidewalk on Tuesdays). And some laws are bad in the sense that they penalize good behavior and make good behavior illegal (for example hiding a slave in the North in the 1850s–illegal, but a good act; or hiding Jews in Nazi Germany). The legality or illegality of any act has no necessary connection to morality.
If I’m “sidestepping” the question, I give up.
