The recurring question without an answer

[Freddy]

Well, that does pretty much sum up our difference. Your moral system would be ruled by your emotions, mine by reason. Didn’t someone attempt to ridicule Catholic morality as an irrational system? It appears Catholic morality is the only rational system offered in this thread.

Nobody said moral rules were ruled by emotions. That has been specifically denied. I have actually said that we shouldn’t necessarily do things just because they feel good and vica versa. But good grief, we are not the Borg. We are not automatons that simply apply set rules to every scenario.

Let ‘save x nunber of people’ equal S(x)
Let ‘sacrifice one off person’ equal K.

If S(5) equals K
Click click whirr
Then NOT S

There you go. It’s that simple for you. Look! It’s written! Here’s literally the chapter and verse! But do you know the reason why that might change if K equals your mother or your kids? You do, but I’ll explain it anyway. It’s for exactly the same reasons that you spend money on buying your kids presents and take them on holiday and give them special treats rather than send the money to a charity where the cash could save a life or two.

What’s more important to you? Presents for the kids or saving lives? We all have that bottle of wine for dinner. Or that new laptop. Or a nice potted plant for the deck. And we avoid thinking about where the money could have gone.

So please don’t give me this nonsense about how emotion should be kept out of moral decision making. Even when we know as a fact that the decisions we make aren’t for the greater good. But at least the person who is aware of why we do what we do in certain circumstances is better positioned to understand the difference between emotionally driven decisions and cold and clear rational ones. And to make allowances. And to accept that those allowances are what makes us human.

But you can mentally print out ‘Then NOT S’ every time and live with that.

But write another couple of lines of code such as: Let amount of cash spent on children equal $x. Fill in the next couple of lines regarding the monetary worth of a life saved and see how you get on. Tell me if the two programmes don’t conflict. Tell me that there’s no hypocrisy apparent in abiding by both.

 

[Freddy]

macska:

LeafByNiggle:

What you have achieved is agreement on an absolute moral law that has within it certain conditions that say when and how it applies. You can call those conditions the “situation” if you like, but that does not make this an example of “situational ethics” which is opposed to all absolute moral laws.

Are you serious? An “absolute” law is only applicable under certain circumstances??? That is an oxymoron. The word “absolute” means “under any and all circumstances”.

No, you have a misunderstanding of what an absolute law is. An absolute law means it holds under all circumstances described by the law.

Gee, Leaf. We disagree on a lot but at least you make sense. But this…?

If there are circumstances described by the law then it cannot, by definition, be absolute. That is, not qualified in any way. ‘Lying is wrong’ is an absolute moral statement. It applies under all circumstances. But what you are saying is that ‘Lying to the Nazis if you are hiding someone in the attic is wrong’, a moral law described by the circumstances, is absolute.

Complete nonsense. I really have to put this down to some sort of typo. Surely you cannot mean that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

macska:

LeafByNiggle:

What you have achieved is agreement on an absolute moral law that has within it certain conditions that say when and how it applies. You can call those conditions the “situation” if you like, but that does not make this an example of “situational ethics” which is opposed to all absolute moral laws.

Are you serious? An “absolute” law is only applicable under certain circumstances??? That is an oxymoron. The word “absolute” means “under any and all circumstances”.

No, you have a misunderstanding of what an absolute law is. An absolute law means it holds under all circumstances described by the law.

Gee, Leaf. We disagree on a lot but at least you make sense. But this…?

If there are circumstances described by the law then it cannot, by definition, be absolute. That is, not qualified in any way. ‘Lying is wrong’ is an absolute moral statement. It applies under all circumstances. But what you are saying is that ‘Lying to the Nazis if you are hiding someone in the attic is wrong’, a moral law described by the circumstances, is absolute.

Complete nonsense. I really have to put this down to some sort of typo. Surely you cannot mean that.

No, there is no typo. I think you are confusing “absolute moral law” with “a very simple moral law.” There is reason why an absolute moral law has to be something that can be stated in less than ten words. You misquoted the absolute law, “lying is wrong.” A fuller statement of that law is that “lying to someone is wrong if that person is entitled to that information.” In the Nazi case, the Nazi, as an unjust authority, is not entitled to that truth. Once you have the correct statement of the law you will see that the condition you are are relying on to change the outcome is already part of the law.

 

[Annie]

But you can mentally print out ‘Then NOT S’ every time and live with that.

Shortly before the revolt of Judas Maccabeus (2 Maccabees 8), Antiochus IV Epiphanes arrested a mother and her seven sons, and tried to force them to eat pork. When they refused, he tortured and killed the sons one by one. The narrator mentions that the mother “was the most remarkable of all, and deserves to be remembered with special honour. She watched her seven sons die in the space of a single day, yet she bore it bravely because she put her trust in the Lord.”[4] Each of the sons makes a speech as he dies, and the last one says that his brothers are “dead under God’s covenant of everlasting life”.[5] The narrator ends by saying that the mother died, without saying whether she was executed, or died in some other way.

From Wikipedia, the woman with 7 sons.

If it I had to sin in order to save X lives, I hope I would have the grace to resist the sin, even if it were my own children on whom I have gone so far as to spend money.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But you can mentally print out ‘Then NOT S’ every time and live with that.

Shortly before the revolt of Judas Maccabeus (2 Maccabees 8), Antiochus IV Epiphanes arrested a mother and her seven sons, and tried to force them to eat pork. When they refused, he tortured and killed the sons one by one. The narrator mentions that the mother “was the most remarkable of all, and deserves to be remembered with special honour. She watched her seven sons die in the space of a single day, yet she bore it bravely because she put her trust in the Lord.”[4] Each of the sons makes a speech as he dies, and the last one says that his brothers are “dead under God’s covenant of everlasting life”.[5] The narrator ends by saying that the mother died, without saying whether she was executed, or died in some other way.

From Wikipedia, the woman with 7 sons.

If it I had to sin in order to save X lives, I hope I would have the grace to resist the sin, even if it were my own children on whom I have gone so far as to spend money.

That’s where your morality will lead. Tell a lie or watch your children die one by one. Do you honestly expect me to accept that anyone would do that?

 

[Annie]

That’s where your morality will lead. Tell a lie or watch your children die one by one. Do you honestly expect me to accept that anyone would do that?

You have the story of someone who did this. I just said I hoped I would have the grace to do the same should I find myself in that position.

You seem to think that is a bad thing?

 

[Freddy]

You seem to think that is a bad thing?

You really need to ask?

 

[Annie]

I think it is a glorious and noble act; one which I would hope to emulate should I find myself in that situation.

“You really need to ask?”

 

[Annie]

You know, people wish they had something in their lives worth living for.

What is more worthy is something worth dying for.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

LeafByNiggle:

macska:

LeafByNiggle:

What you have achieved is agreement on an absolute moral law that has within it certain conditions that say when and how it applies. You can call those conditions the “situation” if you like, but that does not make this an example of “situational ethics” which is opposed to all absolute moral laws.

Are you serious? An “absolute” law is only applicable under certain circumstances??? That is an oxymoron. The word “absolute” means “under any and all circumstances”.

No, you have a misunderstanding of what an absolute law is. An absolute law means it holds under all circumstances described by the law.

Gee, Leaf. We disagree on a lot but at least you make sense. But this…?

If there are circumstances described by the law then it cannot, by definition, be absolute. That is, not qualified in any way. ‘Lying is wrong’ is an absolute moral statement. It applies under all circumstances. But what you are saying is that ‘Lying to the Nazis if you are hiding someone in the attic is wrong’, a moral law described by the circumstances, is absolute.

Complete nonsense. I really have to put this down to some sort of typo. Surely you cannot mean that.

No, there is no typo. I think you are confusing “absolute moral law” with “a very simple moral law.” There is reason why an absolute moral law has to be something that can be stated in less than ten words. You misquoted the absolute law, “lying is wrong.” A fuller statement of that law is that “lying to someone is wrong if that person is entitled to that information.” In the Nazi case, the Nazi, as an unjust authority, is not entitled to that truth. Once you have the correct statement of the law you will see that the condition you are are relying on to change the outcome is already part of the law.

The closest you are going to get to that from a Catholic viewpoint is the catechism 2488, which confirms that there is no absolute moral position: ‘This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.’ In other words, telling a lie is conditional to the circumstances.

If that isn’t a relative position then I’m at a loss to be able to define the difference between absolute and relative.

 

[macska]

Umm… that’s exactly what Catholic moral theology says. See the Catechism’s section on The Morality of Human Acts for a primer on what the Church teaches.

I don’t need the catechism to understand simple, secular concepts. A law is “absolute”, if it is applicable in ALL conceivable circumstances. A law is “relative”, it is is applicable in some, but not all conceivable circumstances.

 

[Freddy]

You know, people wish they had something in their lives worth living for.

What is more worthy is something worth dying for.

Indeed. My children for one. I would die for them. But I wouldn’t allow them to die because of my beliefs. If you think that God would want your children to die rather than tell a lie then you must do what you think you must. Just don’t expect me to respect your decision.

 

[Gorgias]

A law is “absolute”, if it is applicable in ALL conceivable circumstances. A law is “relative”, it is is applicable in some, but not all conceivable circumstances.

You’re gonna hate this, then, but… one of the responses to “hard sayings” in the Bible – such as this notion of “genocide of the Amelekites” – is that this is a self-defense claim: the Amelekites attempted to eradicate the Israelites, so their response against them was their attempt to protect their nation.

So, if this is the case… then we’ve got no example of “relative morality”.

 

[Annie]

I am glad you have something worth dying for in your life. Maybe that you allow you to empathize with those of us who have other things worth dying for

 

[Freddy]

I am glad you have something worth dying for in your life. Maybe that you allow you to empathize with those of us who have other things worth dying for

You were not the one dying remember? Self sacrifice can be a noble thing to do. But sacrificing your children because of your moral beliefs is not.

 

[Annie]

I don’t need the catechism to understand simple, secular concepts. A law is “absolute”, if it is applicable in ALL conceivable circumstances. A law is “relative”, it is is applicable in some, but not all conceivable circumstances.

I think if you look at the discussion Freddy and I have been having, it shows the difference between situation ethics and Catholic morality.

Consider a common example: a crazy woman has kidnapped a heinous criminal who will die in the next few days. The woman hands me a gun and tells me to kill the guy or she will blow up New York with a dirty bomb she got on the internet.

For reasons I will not go into here, I happen to know she does have the bomb and she is serious.

My entire family live in New York, not to mention all the other people.

@Freddy would say shoot the guy! >> situation ethics

And I would be praying for the grace not to do it. >>Catholic morality

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The closest you are going to get to that from a Catholic viewpoint is the catechism 2488, which confirms that there is no absolute moral position: ‘This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.’ In other words, telling a lie is conditional to the circumstances.

If that isn’t a relative position then I’m at a loss to be able to define the difference between absolute and relative.

It is absolute in the sense that no conditions other than the ones mentioned in the law would change the outcome. For example, if I have an opportunity through lying to cause a million dollars to be transferred to the charity of my choice from a company that is polluting rivers, situational ethics would say that “considering everything” more good can be done by lying, and to people who subscribe to that view, that situation justifies lying. But the law is absolute in the sense that this situation, as noble as it appears, does not change the applicability of the law.

 

[BT3241]

The scenario does not fit reality so it can’t be answered - you would have to know the future which just isn’t possible. Its not possible to know what another is going do or future events.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Actually, that is a great example and the answer would be yes.

 

[macska]

You’re gonna hate this, then, but… one of the responses to “hard sayings” in the Bible – such as this notion of “genocide of the Amelekites” – is that this is a self-defense claim: the Amelekites attempted to eradicate the Israelites, so their response against them was their attempt to protect their nation.

What about the "kill all the men and boys, and kill all the women who are not virgins, but save for yourself the virgins (for your own sexual gratification)? If there would be an “absolute” law, then it would be applicable across all the ages and across all the nations. As soon as there is ONE exception, the law becomes “relative”.

Of course the children and infants of the Amelekies are all “innocent”, so their slaughter is impermissible. Don’t try to refer back to the Bible. With proper quote-mining you can “prove” anything and its opposite, too.

Of course I am totally unimpressed by the Bible or the catechism. One more time:

A law is “absolute”, if it is applicable in ALL conceivable circumstances. A law is “relative”, it is is applicable in some, but not all conceivable circumstances.