B
Bender
Guest
Such “deep” arguments make the contribution futile. According to Catholicism, humans are “rational animals”. A crazy person is not rational. Q.E.D.
Ignorance and intention are integral part of being an aggressor.
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
A child before the age of reason is not rational. A sleeping person is not rational. A comatose person is not rational, etc. A crazed person under the influence of a drug, for instance, has not lost their rational faculty. After the effects of the drug wane (assuming no one killed him yet) the faculty again evidences itself. During the drug delirium, the absence of rational acts does not mean the absence of rationality.
Opinion? What is given gratuitously may be just as gratuitously dismissed.
All acts of aggression are committed by an aggressor.
The object font describes the act and the foreseeable ends independent of any particular actor or any actor’s intention. Of course, if one rejects Catholic morality then one may claim whatever one wants.
B
Bender
Guest
And we do not consider them “aggressors” either.
O
o_mlly
Guest
? No one claimed these people are aggressors. The post refutes your claim that crazy people are just like animals. See below:
V
Vico
Guest
“we may now be able to prevent maternal loss of life which might otherwise incline some people to suggest an abortion.” – Annie
There is the case of fear of death or negative effects later in pregnancy, after the fetus is legally viable. Some may use RU-486 to end a pregnancy through 70 days gestation.
Yes, some people may be deterred.
There is the case of fear of death or negative effects later in pregnancy, after the fetus is legally viable. Some may use RU-486 to end a pregnancy through 70 days gestation.
M
macska
Guest
Actually you did. Right here.
No, it does not refute anything. It is the Church’s definition that “humans are rational animals”. I simply apply this definition. If you don’t like it, bring it up with the church.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Nope, didn’t do that.
Even though your post evidences an irrational thought you do not become, ispso facto, “crazy … just like an animal”. Don’t you agree?
No, you misapplied the Church’s definition here:
We can only take you at your words.
R
Rau
Guest
But so poorly crafted as to fail, for the reasons given.
M
macska
Guest
You are always welcome NOT to participate. The criticism would be more interesting if there would be some substance to it. And no, there were no reasons given.
There is no logical contradiction in a thought experiment, where someone unknowingly and unintentionally puts others into lethal jeopardy. And where the only solution to deal with this danger can only be achieved by using lethal force.
F
Freddy
Guest
Here’s a response that you will never get:Rau:
You are always welcome NOT to participate. The criticism would be more interesting if there would be some substance to it. And no, there were no reasons given.
There is no logical contradiction in a thought experiment, where someone unknowingly and unintentionally puts others into lethal jeopardy. And where the only solution to deal with this danger can only be achieved by using lethal force.
‘I see the problem. And I’m not sure I could blow up the lab because I know it would kill innocent people. But it would be the logical thing to do. And if someone else were to do it I wouldn’t blame them. But to do so would be a sin as far as the Catholic church is concerned. So I would be putting my mortal soul in danger. If I was the only person capable of doing it and went through with it then I would suffer the consequences of my action and would pray for God’s forgiveness.’
R
Rau
Guest
Yep, that’s the appropriate course.
A
Annie
Guest
The lab scenario fails because it makes no sense that there would be no alternative actions nor is the danger imminent.
When one says the danger is imminent, it is meant that a reasonable person could forsee that within a few minutes the danger could manifest.
Someone swinging a bat at you. Holding a gun on you. Driving toward you. Throwing heavy rocks at you.
Should a person who is not cognizant of his actions due to mental illness or some sort of substance intoxication be doing one of the above, then, altho their culpability would be reduced because they are mentally not right, one would still have the right to defend oneself, even if lethally. And one might even have the obligation to use potentially lethal force to protect another.
When one says the danger is imminent, it is meant that a reasonable person could forsee that within a few minutes the danger could manifest.
Someone swinging a bat at you. Holding a gun on you. Driving toward you. Throwing heavy rocks at you.
Should a person who is not cognizant of his actions due to mental illness or some sort of substance intoxication be doing one of the above, then, altho their culpability would be reduced because they are mentally not right, one would still have the right to defend oneself, even if lethally. And one might even have the obligation to use potentially lethal force to protect another.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
The question is poorly stated, as it says the individual is
The scenario is yet to be described by the time I got to your post, and so it is far more likely no such situation could be described. The scenario would also have to be constructed that no other means could be made except killing the causing individual.
lethally endangering others. If they are truly unknowing and unintentional - meaning, apparently, not careless, then yse, they may be innocent.
The scenario is yet to be described by the time I got to your post, and so it is far more likely no such situation could be described. The scenario would also have to be constructed that no other means could be made except killing the causing individual.
G
Gorgias
Guest
“Unintended”, not “accidental”.
It was more a “whoosh” than a “crack”. The example missed the mark.
If you have one that works and will move the conversation forward, though, please share it!
You haven’t met folks whose definition of “stupid” is “someone who doesn’t think like I do”? You haven’t been paying attention around CAF, then…
You find a way to neutralize the danger without blowing up the neighborhood. The latter would be morally illicit.
We did deal with it: we identified it as unrealistic and as invalidly attempting to force consequentialist morality.
Nevertheless, human life has value because it’s human life, and not based on any other quality that the person might or might not possess (able to jump tall buildings in a single bound, for instance, or be able to think through a proposition rationally).
So… no. An irrational person is not an “animal.”
No; they’re an integral part of the question “is the aggressor culpable of his action?”
It is also the Church’s definition that humans are sinful. If a person walks out of the confessional, having been forgiven of their sins, such that they are not at that point sinful, your assertion means that they are no longer human. See how silly that sounds?
You’re misapplying the definition.
Still the wrong analysis, I think. The point that we’re getting stuck on is culpability, not innocence.
I would answer that the teachings of the Church cover the right of a person to self-defense (or defense of one who is threatened) against an aggressor who is not culpable of his acts of aggression.
O
o_mlly
Guest
OK. We get it – an innocent person.
It depends on exactly what “puts” means. Is there an aggressive act? If no act, is the innocent person’s being at a place and time the threat? If not an accident of place and time then is it the innocent person’s simply being that lethally threatens others?
Homicide is always an evil. Homicide of an innocent is all the more evil. What did the innocent person do to lose his right to life?
The church does not give a general license to kill innocents. Nor does she teach that such an act is intrinsically evil. The extreme seriousness of the act of homicide often requires a case by case evaluation. There are principles but your case is far too general, as other posters have noted, for serious comment.
M
macska
Guest
Why “few minutes”? The time for the fuse to ignite a bomb can be large, but not large ENOUGH to find a way to stop the explosion. Of course, this is NOT the scenario I would suggest, it is merely an argument that the word “imminent” is undefined. I did NOT suggest the lab scenario.
The good answer has finally arrived. Cheers!
No one talks about blowing up the neighborhood. The problem is “what do you do if the only way to prevent to prevent the lethal danger is to apply lethal force”.
Unrealistic, unlikely or not, it is a legitimate thought experiment. And you have no solution for it. By the way, the lethal defense against an intentional threat is ALSO a consequentialist concept. Looks like you STILL don’t understand. In a thought experiment ONLY the logically impossible states of affairs are disallowed; unlikely scenarios are allowed.
Yes. Innocent of any malice. But innocent people still can put others into lethal danger, unknowingly and unwillingly.
That was the defense for Clinton.
What is “IS”? It did not work then, it does not work now.Let’s see. Just for the fun of it. This is only ONE example, nothing more.
A child (or an ignorant person) is playing with some dangerous materials, and is about to create a lethal substance. You are too far to intervene and if the final step in the process is allowed to occur, the lethal substance becomes reality. The only solution is to grab a gun and kill that person to save millions of of others.
The child, or the ignorant person are free of malice, they are INNOCENT, they do not intend to put anyone into danger. Yet, their action puts others into danger. Can you offer a solution? Your only choices are “stay put” and allow the havoc on others (and yourself), or grab that gun and kill that innocent person. There is NO other possibility. No magic wand to be waved and no “deus ex machina”, like in the ancient Greek tragedies.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Apparently it does work now as your example defines “puts” as an aggressive act. That’s all we needed. No need for the theatrics.That was the defense for Clinton.
And in response, I refer you to post #105 about a week ago. Asked and answered then. Next question?
G
Gorgias
Guest
You should really try to not contradict your earlier assertions.
So… yeah: you talk about blowing up the neighborhood.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
So I wasn’t the only one who saw the connection. But of course, it all depended on exactly what ‘connection’ means.o_mlly:
That was the defense for Clinton.
- Status