The not-so-evil Spanish Inquisition

[JimR-OCDS]

ough it is distasteful to carry out.

But even then, the “double-effect,” doctrine would come into play.

You can’t commit an evil act to achieve a good.

Jim

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

ough it is distasteful to carry out.

But even then, the “double-effect,” doctrine would come into play.

You can’t commit an evil act to achieve a good.

Jim

Is inflicting pain on someone always “an evil act?”

Merely for pleasure, perhaps. But what if important moral consequences hang in the balance?

Your dentist might have some thoughts about that.

What if it causes no harm, only pain or discomfort? Still evil?

The principle of double effect refers specifically to evil (harm.) Does it necessarily apply to pain as well? In all instances?

Why would it? Is causing or suffering pain, in itself, evil? I don’t think so.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Torture is always wrong, per Church doctrine.

Jim

 

[HarryStotle]

That’s what I keep hearing, but anyone who has tried to make the case hasn’t been convincing.

 

[AlNg]

Torture is always wrong, per Church doctrine.

I thought that they used torture in the Inquisition ?

 

[GKMotley]

Well…yes. They did.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

They use techniques no worse than the police used during the prohibition.

The state used extreme levels of torture and the Church pretty much turned a blind eye towards it.

The Church for the most part was in bed with the nobility of the times and didn’t want to rock the boat so to speak.

Jim

 

[AlNg]

They use techniques no worse than the police used during the prohibition.

Did American police use the rack to stretch people who drank beer during the prohibition?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No and neither did the Church.

Don’t confuse what the state did to what the Church did in the Spanish Inquisition.

It’s because of the better treatment they got as to why the Spanish people rioted when the Ecclesiastical courts closed. The state courts were brutal.

Jim