The four requirements of justifyable pain, suffering or harm

[vz71]

If you wish to come onto a Catholic website, post onto the Catholic forum, and mock the beliefs of the Catholic church it is your burden to provide proof.

If there is an unsupported assertion, all I have to do is point out that it is unsupported. And I did that.

You fail to notice the support for my beliefs.
My beliefs are supported by the traditions of the Catholic church.
And on this forum, the traditions of the church are an authority.

 

[vz71]

Truth is truth.

And as you so well stated in another thread, you should not toss out the facts even if the person arguing against you rejects fact.

I agree. So all you have to do is show that whatever you consider “truth” is really the “truth”. And that is your burden.

I suppose it would create an odd situation if you disagreed with your own words.
Although it would not be without precedent.

But given the authority of the church teaching in this forum, the truth is firmly backed.
Your argument is with the forum itself.

 

[Spock]

You fail to notice the support for my beliefs.
My beliefs are supported by the traditions of the Catholic church.
And on this forum, the traditions of the church are an authority.

But given the authority of the church teaching in this forum, the truth is firmly backed.
Your argument is with the forum itself.

Well, then I guess you and all the others should just “argue” with a one-liner: “The church says that Case closed!”. But not even the church claims that everything the church says is “infallible”. And the catholic church is not authority for protestants, jews, muslims, atheists, buddhists, etc… Maybe you should suggest that all the dissenters should be banned, and then you would not be bothered by differing opinions and arguments. Go ahead.

 

[vz71]

Well, then I guess you and all the others should just “argue” with a one-liner: “The church says that Case closed!”. But not even the church claims that everything the church says is “infallible”. And the catholic church is not authority for protestants, jews, muslims, atheists, buddhists, etc… Maybe you should suggest that all the dissenters should be banned, and then you would not be bothered by differing opinions and arguments. Go ahead.

You are welcome to come and have a teaching explained.
But if you wish to deny the authority of the teaching, then that would be your problem.
The teachings of the Catholic church are firmly backed by tradition.

There actually is a larger problem at work here.
We approached it earlier, but I believe it was dismissed as a ‘red herring’ when it really strikes at the heart of the issue.

What do you believe?
If you believe anything beyond your own practical experience, who do you trust?
Why?

You see, very little of our knowledge is through practical experience.
I drop a rock on my foot, I know of gravity and mass.
But how much is there that I simply do not experience practically or do not bother to test? How do you know the speed of light? The distance to the moon?
That there are problems in the Middle East? That Obama is currently the president?
Much of what you know is told to you by someone or something you believe to be an authority.

So who is your authority and why?
One of mine is God’s church. And it has not steered me wrong.

 

[Spock]

You are welcome to come and have a teaching explained.

I tried it, several times. Most recently I pointed out that the cathecism states that God’s existence can be known through rational means only, that there is no need for faith in some revelation in that respect. (It said that specifics need revelation, but the existence of God does not). Except that it ends there. There is no continuation, it does not say “how” can God’s existence be known through reason only. There are many so-called arguments for God’s existence out there. One can reasonably expect that the cathecism will state: “this is the correct proof for God’s existence - and spells it out”. But the page is “empty”.

Here is another reason. The catholic church “claims” that it is the only authority which is qualified to interpret the Bible. Ok, let’s accept this provisionally - even though it is a self-proclaimed authority. But in that case it is inexcusable not to give us a specific interpretation of each and every verse. Which verses are to be understood in a literal fashion, and which ones are to taken allegorically, and if they are allegorical, how should those verses be understood? (Is the creation story literally true? Was there a talking serpent and an actual tree of knowledge of good and evil? Is the story of the flood a literal description of what happened? Is Luke 19:27 literal or allegorical?) If the church claims authority and does not deliver the goods, what kind of authority is that?

But if you wish to deny the authority of the teaching, then that would be your problem.

I deny it. I have many reasons, and two of them I just spelled out above. A “real” authority does not just say something, it tells the specifics, and then tells why those specifics are correct.

The teachings of the Catholic church are firmly backed by tradition.

Tradition means nothing to me.

There actually is a larger problem at work here.
We approached it earlier, but I believe it was dismissed as a ‘red herring’ when it really strikes at the heart of the issue.

What do you believe?
If you believe anything beyond your own practical experience, who do you trust?
Why?

You see, very little of our knowledge is through practical experience.
I drop a rock on my foot, I know of gravity and mass.
But how much is there that I simply do not experience practically or do not bother to test? How do you know the speed of light? The distance to the moon?
That there are problems in the Middle East? That Obama is currently the president?
Much of what you know is told to you by someone or something you believe to be an authority.

So who is your authority and why?
One of mine is God’s church. And it has not steered me wrong.

This is an important question. Indeed we only acquired a miniscule portion of our knowledge through personal experience and verification. An overwhelming majority of what we know comes through “second-hand” means, by accepting some authority’s word for it.

So who is an authority? Someone who can demonstrate what it says, without referring to its “authoritative” status. Someone who can demonstrate the truth without demanding an a-priori acceptance of what it claims. Authority is never self-proclaimed, the authority is earned, because some people can demonstrate that they know what they are talking about.

The catholic church fails woefully in that respect. It cannot show the veracity of its claims without referring to its own self-proclaimed authority, and/or demanding an a-priori acceptance of its claims. There was a catholic theologian who said (not a verbatim quote): “the last thing one should ask for is evidence for God’s existence. First you must accept that God exists, and then you will be in the position to search of God’s existence”.

Do you see the difference? The theologian says that one should not collect all the evidence, and then let the chips fall where they may; he said that one should collect the evidence which support the hypothesis, and discard the rest. That is not the way to establish an “authority”. This is how snake-oil peddlers operate, who only say: “trust me”.

 

[vz71]

So who is an authority? Someone who can demonstrate what it says, without referring to its “authoritative” status. Someone who can demonstrate the truth without demanding an a-priori acceptance of what it claims. Authority is never self-proclaimed, the authority is earned, because some people can demonstrate that they know what they are talking about.

Well, you can call the definition if you want and then accuse someone of failing it.
But you should make certain your definition is right or you simply look silly.
The definition provided above does not match what authority in the context of this debate actually is.
The definition of authority is one who has more knowledge of a given subject then you.
That is all.

 

[Spock]

Well, you can call the definition if you want and then accuse someone of failing it.
But you should make certain your definition is right or you simply look silly.
The definition provided above does not match what authority in the context of this debate actually is.
The definition of authority is one who has more knowledge of a given subject then you.
That is all.

I am sorry that I wasted so much time in composing an answer to what seemed to be a genuine question. It will not happen again.

In short: “anyone can claim that they have more knowledge”. If they cannot demonstrate it, it is an empty claim. Who looks silly here, I will leave it others to decide. Good-bye.

 

[vz71]

In short: “anyone can claim that they have more knowledge”. If they cannot demonstrate it, it is an empty claim. Who looks silly here, I will leave it others to decide. Good-bye.

One only need be convincing to the people that believe them.

Which leads me to a question…
Who are your authorities?
Is everything you know first hand?

 

[Spock]

One only need be convincing to the people that believe them.

Every snake-oil salesman lives by the principle: “A sucker is born (again) every minute”.

Which leads me to a question…
Who are your authorities?
Is everything you know first hand?

I already answered this above. Go and read it.

 

[vz71]

I already answered this above. Go and read it.

A quick re-read of the last several posts reveals nothing.

So I ask again,
Who are your authorities?
Is everything you know first hand?

 

[Spock]

A quick re-read of the last several posts reveals nothing.

Too bad. But, since you insist, I will repeat them.

Who are your authorities?

Someone who can demonstrate what it says, without referring to its “authoritative” status. Someone who can demonstrate the truth without demanding an a-priori acceptance of what it claims.

Is everything you know first hand?

An overwhelming majority of what we know comes through “second-hand” means, by accepting some authority’s word for it.

 

[vz71]

Someone who can demonstrate what it says, without referring to its “authoritative” status. Someone who can demonstrate the truth without demanding an a-priori acceptance of what it claims.

So when someone tells you something that you cannot readily verify, you dismiss it?

 

[Spock]

So when someone tells you something that you cannot readily verify, you dismiss it?

It all depends. There are several factors to consider. Claims go from very probable to wildly improbable. Somewhere in-between there is a fine line. It separates the “believable” claims from the “unbelievable”. Another factor is the importance of the claim. The fine line I mentioned varies according to the importance of the claim. Yet another factor is how trustworthy is the person who makes the claim. This is why there is no simple answer.

For example: if you claimed that you won 100 bucks on the lottery, I would not doubt you. I would consider that you are a Catholic, and thus I would not think that you might lie over such trivial matter. Second, there is nothing special about winning a 100 bucks - so it is a likely claim. Third, it would make difference for me if you won it, or not. Pondering these three factors, I would accept your claim, and would not think about verifying it. As usual, the devil is in the details.

Now, what does all this have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[david_friol_1]

Pain, suffering or harm can sometimes be justified. They can be justified if some greater good comes out of them. But the “greater good” is much too vague. Not all harms can be justified simply because some good will ensue. Here are the four requirements I wish to introduce.

1. The recipient of the “greater good” must be the same who endured the harm. It is unacceptable to inflict some harm on person “A”, so that person “B” will reap some benefits. Unless, of course person “A” volunteers for it, and is aware of the consequences.
2. The “greater good” must really outweigh the harm. If the sufferer is mature and lucid, he must be asked first, if he wants the harm. If the sufferer is not mature or lucid, then the one who inflicts the pain must use his best judgment.
3. The harm cannot be lessened without losing the benefit.
4. The harm must be a logical prerequisite to the benefit. If the same benefit can be reached without the harm, the harm cannot be justified.

These are very simple requirements. Maybe you agree, maybe you don’t. If you disagree, please tell me, why?

Hey Spock
I don’t know if any of what you wrote is true or false. But it seems to me that the justification that you are looking for is one that puts you in the position of being in control of the the whole thing, like a director in a play. Because when we talk about the “greater good” out weighing the bad and logical prerequisites we assume that we know all the good that comes from and the total possible scenarios of a given situation. And as far as #1 goes; causing harm to person A(child molester) to stop him while he is molesting person B(5 year old girl) would benefit her very much whether I ask his permission or not to whack him with my baseball bat. #3 I do not understand what you mean by that, perhaps an example.

Peace to you!