Thoughts on the gay cake case

[friardchips]

In this story the mob were not going to obliterate the human race with a deadly virus.

What’s to stop the terrorist from obliterating the human race, including his daughter, while she is being raped by the SWAT team or when they have finished?

My point of bringing up the OT story was not to put across my side of things. I was just using it as a story comparison, albeit a poor one.

The end does not justify the means, IMO. But either way, if the terrorists are going to blow up the world, then the father might as well not allow his daugher get raped as well. And his daughter being raped would and should matter to him at all costs. My: :twocents:

 

[PRmerger]

My point of bringing up the OT story was not to put across my side of things. I was just using it as a story comparison, albeit a poor one.

The end does not justify the means, IMO. But either way, if the terrorists are going to blow up the world, then the father might as well not allow his daugher get raped as well. And his daughter being raped would and should matter to him at all costs. My: :twocents:

Do you understand that the terrorist IS the father?

 

[friardchips]

Do you understand that the terrorist IS the father?

Either way, it DOES NOT matter.

No rape.

Not ever.

No matter who the daddy.

No matter who the terrorist.

End does not justify means.

No rape.

Not ever.

I’m going to sleep. Goodnight.

 

[PRmerger]

Either way, it DOES NOT matter.

No rape.

Not ever.

No matter who the daddy.

No matter who the terrorist.

End does not justify means.

No rape.

Not ever.

I’m going to sleep. Goodnight.

Egg-zactly.

But the point that was being made was that this scenario, even while acknowledging it to be far-fetched, is beyond absurd–for if the terrorist is going to kill his 3 yr old daughter in 5 minutes, why would he be such a loving father as to intervene in her rape?

 

[Rau]

It says right here: "1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. "

Correct. I concur. But where does it contradict that?

 

[minkymurph]

My point of bringing up the OT story was not to put across my side of things. I was just using it as a story comparison, albeit a poor one.

The end does not justify the means, IMO. But either way, if the terrorists are going to blow up the world, then the father might as well not allow his daugher get raped as well. And his daughter being raped would and should matter to him at all costs. My: :twocents:

Your story is not a poor one. It’s relevant to the discussion in that you were illustrating in a father may offer his daughter for sex to prevent killing innocent people. What I was saying was if you are prepared to kill innocent people, including yourself and your daughter, would someone raping her stop you?

Your absolutely right - his daughter being raped should matter. In the scenario we are discussing I was arguing there is every likelihood it would not.

For instance, if someone believed they were carrying out a ‘holy act’ by planting a bomb or being a suicide bomber, someone took their daughter captive and said they would rape her if they carried out the act, I say such a person would not be dissuaded and still do it.

 

[minkymurph]

Egg-zactly.

But the point that was being made was that this scenario, even while acknowledging it to be far-fetched, is beyond absurd–for if the terrorist is going to kill his 3 yr old daughter in 5 minutes, why would he be such a loving father as to intervene in her rape?

That’s pretty much it PR - in a nutshell.

I would argue rape is probably the one universal. Whilst we may say certain acts are always evil, in certain circumstances society is willing to excuse due to the motive. In the extreme an example would be the plot to kill Hitler. Murder yes, bad yes, justified? If we were honest most of us would say yes.

To date I have yet to read an argument, that is one worthy of consideration, in which any society is willing to forgo any punishment and justify or excuse sex without consent.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

In the Christian ethos, this would not be permissible.

I am aware of that. But this is precisely one of the reasons that I reject the Christian “ethos”. You proclaim that you “love” your neighbor, but you are willing to condemn a huge portion of the human race to extinction because you are reluctant to do what is needed to save them. So I cannot accept that you follow the commandment of “thou shalt love thy neighbor as yourself”. You may say it, but your act belies your words.

There is no morality in doing evil that good may come.

I do not speak of the “morality” of the act, only if the act can be justified or not. In my ethical system this is a justifiable action, in yours it is not. That brings up the question of what epistemological method is to be used to determine if “ethical system A” is superior or inferior to “ethical system B”? Do you have one?

The end does not justify the means.

I agree. But it is NOT the end that justifies the means. Rather some means and some ends together can form a justifiable sequence of events, while other means and the same ends cannot be justified.

Let’s use another hypothetical scenario. Suppose that by forcefully taking (“stealing”) a penny from all the millionaires of the world you could find a cure for cancer. In my ethical system this would be a justified action, since the negative effect of “stealing” a penny from the millionaires is more than outweighed by the positive result of getting rid of cancer. Obviously this is a consequentialist or utilitarian approach.

I think your line of argument is too easily refuted. The ‘so what’ is if the scenario is highly unlikely to arise. It is purely hypothetical and thus justification cannot be established outside a remote degree of uncertainty.

Irrelevant. The question was if there is any hypothetical scenario where “rape” could be justified. The probability of this scenario appearing is not relevant.

 

[PRmerger]

I am aware of that. But this is precisely one of the reasons that I reject the Christian “ethos”. You proclaim that you “love” your neighbor, but you are willing to condemn a huge portion of the human race to extinction because you are reluctant to do what is needed to save them.

Right.

I wouldn’t ever sanction the rape of a 3 yr old so that I could live. Or so my 3 yr old daughter could live.

That’s just evil.

And that you would see this as moral is…well, I am simply speechless.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Right.

I wouldn’t ever sanction the rape of a 3 yr old so that I could live. Or so my 3 yr old daughter could live.

That’s just evil.

So you do not care about the well-being of others. Fine by me. I accept that this is your basic principle.

And that you would see this as moral is…well, I am simply speechless.

You do not pay attention. I do NOT use the adjective “moral” since it is an empty phrase. When I am confronted with a choice, where both possibilities are “unwelcome” and / or “unpalatable” I would choose where the least harm is done. You do not care about the others. That is fine by me. I understand your “ethical” foundation, I simply disagree with it.

 

[Rau]

No, I don’t.

The evaluation of an act cannot be separated from the circumstances, the motive and the result - according to the church (on one hand). On the other hand the church also says that some acts are “intrinsically” evil, and does not care about the circumstances, the motives and the results. This is the typical “I want to have that cake, and eat it, too” kind of reasoning. It does not fly.

Actually we deal here with a variant of the “trolley problem”. There are instances of dilemmas where there is no “good” outcome. Yet, one is forced to make a decision. In such a case one must choose the lesser of two “evils”. As such the “evil” deed can be justified - so it will not be considered “evil” any more.

Your first para is wrong and I explained it to you previously.

The classic trolley problems involve the acceptance of evil outcomes (balanced by a greater good outcome), but not the choice of evil acts. This is well understood moral theology.

Can you say when a rape is a moral act?

 

[PRmerger]

So you do not care about the well-being of others. Fine by me. I accept that this is your basic principle.

Careful, Pallas. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

But you are not permitted to misrepresent the position of others.

 

[Rau]

…If the alternative would be the extermination of the human race, or a significant portion thereof. Suppose that a terrorist would threaten to release a deadly virus, which would wipe out (almost) everyone. The only way to prevent it is to divert his attention by raping his daughter long enough to let a SWAT team inside and prevent the deed. It is obviously a very farfetched scenario, but so what?

The idea that acts are moral (or as you prefer to say, “justified”) based on the balance of consequences is a well-known “principle”, but one rejected by Catholic moral theology. Pope St JP II addressed the ideas of “consequentialism” and “proportionalism” in this document (see clause 75 and the neighbouring area):
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

These approaches ultimately conclude that the “end can justify the means”. They hold that acts contrary to even God-given laws can be acceptable under the right conditions.

This is such a fundamental difference in premise that no sensible discussion of real-world moral questions can be held between persons not sharing the same premise. For the Catholic, we speak of “moral theology” - God is a relevant factor.

"The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God… Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.

Consequentialism and/or proportionalism may appeal to those who believe there is no higher authority.

 

[friardchips]

Egg-zactly.

But the point that was being made was that this scenario, even while acknowledging it to be far-fetched, is beyond absurd–for if the terrorist is going to kill his 3 yr old daughter in 5 minutes, why would he be such a loving father as to intervene in her rape?

Good point.

 

[friardchips]

Your story is not a poor one. It’s relevant to the discussion in that you were illustrating in a father may offer his daughter for sex to prevent killing innocent people. What I was saying was if you are prepared to kill innocent people, including yourself and your daughter, would someone raping her stop you?

Your absolutely right - his daughter being raped should matter. In the scenario we are discussing I was arguing there is every likelihood it would not.

For instance, if someone believed they were carrying out a ‘holy act’ by planting a bomb or being a suicide bomber, someone took their daughter captive and said they would rape her if they carried out the act, I say such a person would not be dissuaded and still do it.

I see now.

(Sorry for the confusion).

 

[friardchips]

I agree. But it is NOT the end that justifies the means. Rather some means and some ends together can form a justifiable sequence of events, while other means and the same ends cannot be justified.
Let’s use another hypothetical scenario. Suppose that by forcefully taking (“stealing”) a penny from all the millionaires of the world you could find a cure for cancer. In my ethical system this would be a justified action, since the negative effect of “stealing” a penny from the millionaires is more than outweighed by the positive result of getting rid of cancer. Obviously this is a consequentialist or utilitarian approach.

Rau basically answered this well, IMO.

If you believe in absolute consequentialism then this discludes our Creator in your theorising.

There is only one whose “end justified the means”, His Passion, and it is only because He accepted it. It is this sacrifice that frees mankind. Our mortal sins do not.

Prayer is never superstition (though some think it can be). Prayer is actual and real time spent with our Creator. Whether it be for an hour, two hours, or two minutes, or even…a few seconds, a second even! These few seconds are known as ‘arrow prayers’. If in doubt, pray an arrow prayer in times such as the conundrum you have put forward, e.g:-

During the dreadful Twin Towers attack signofcross there were some people stuck in the tower. They prayed the ‘Our Father’, and ran to the lift area where other people had gathered. And off course, they lived to tell this tale on a documentary. Turns out, the lift was one of the most well supported areas.

Furthermore, creation is wrapped in our Creator. Nothing time is time in Him. If you put everything down to ‘consequentialism’ then you are not remembering that all is in His hands. Especially in times of crisis and suffering.

No better time to pray.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you do not care about the well-being of others. Fine by me. I accept that this is your basic principle.

The reason the conclusion of “not caring about the well-being of others” does not follow from accepting the rape of a child to “save” the human race is that well-being does not equate to survival.

If you were to ask any particular well-put-together moral agent if they would permit the rape of a child so that they could be spared death, the expected and correct answer would be, “No thanks, I’d rather die first.” (That is, if the moral agent were truly moral and not amoral or immoral.)

In my moral system, a society of good moral agents would not accept the rape of a child in order that their “society” could continue to exist - precisely because if they were to accept such a deal, the moral aspect of their society would have died with their collective acceptance of the rape of the child. The society would have died in a moral sense and, thus, the true “well-being” of that moral society would have perished with acceptance of the deal.

In other words, the moral “soul” of any society that accepts, as morally legitimate, the rape of a child in order for the collective of individuals to “survive” will have died with that Faustian bargain. This is the same reason, by the way, that abortion is essentially Faustian in nature.

True, there is no “evidence” that this moral view is true, but that is precisely because moral sensibilities allow moral truths to be immediately grasped by competent moral agents and not mediated through inductive or deductive means. When some other calculus is required to determine the nature of the “good” and the priority of goods in a moral sense, then morality becomes calculated and to that extent disingenuous.

Moral agents who require that kind of “evidence” regarding moral truths are no longer functioning as competent moral agents since their innate ability to grasp moral truth has been compromised, much as a blind individual has lost the innate ability to grasp light. A blind person requires alternate “proof” or “evidence” concerning what they can’t grasp immediately precisely because of their inability to grasp what is in front of them by “seeing” it.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The idea that acts are moral (or as you prefer to say, “justified”) based on the balance of consequences is a well-known “principle”, but one rejected by Catholic moral theology.

I know that. It is also stipulated that you are not allowed to deliberately kill the terrorist. (Though you can say that putting the gun to the head of the terrorist and pulling the trigger was not intended to kill the terrorist, his death was a foreseen but unintended consequence of pulling the trigger.) Also that you are not allowed to deliberately lie to the Gestapo about the whereabouts of some Jews; even if evasion does not work, while a direct lie would.

Yet, you are allowed to kill in self-defense and even allowed to kill in a war, where your personal safety is not in immediate jeopardy. Also you are allowed to lie to your child about the existence of Santa Claus. Don’t you see the lack of consistency here?

These approaches ultimately conclude that the “end can justify the means”.

No, they do NOT. They simply require to balance the different aspects of the deed. If someone would hold that the “end justifies the means”, then he could do ANYTHING, no matter how disproportionate it might be to achieve some “good”. And that is NOT what consequentialists do. They say that all the circumstances must be examined and weighed, and choose the one, which causes the least about of harm (if it cannot be avoided) or the greatest amount of “good”. This principle is purely secular, rational and logical. It does not require to appeal to some nebulous “higher authority”.

They hold that acts contrary to even God-given laws can be acceptable under the right conditions.

The only problem is that neither God’s existence, nor his alleged “laws” have ever been established.

This is such a fundamental difference in premise that no sensible discussion of real-world moral questions can be held between persons not sharing the same premise.

Sure looks like it. As if we were living on different planets or speaking different languages. I find it very sad and discouraging.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do you now claim omniscience? You simply try to peddle your subjective opinion as if it were some “truth” etched in a stone.

Apart from the fact that you use the emotionally charged “innocent”, you still claim omniscience.

Why so? If you assert that no “A” can be also “B”, you need omniscience - in an inductive system, of course. (In a formal, axiomatic system it is not necessary. )

Omniscience might be required where possibilities are infinite, but that is not convincingly true with regard to moral acts.

For example, the judicial system operates under the assumption that motives for acts (by otherwise sane individuals can be broadly assumed to be limited to three: greed, lust (relational desire) or power.

Likewise, circumstances are limited to time and space; and “goods” to what is beneficial in a determinable way to humans.

This means that determinations of intrinsic evil (that no motives, circumstances or intended ends can ever justify some acts) do not require omniscience.

If I know the four aces from a standard deck of cards are in my hand and I start laying down the ace of hearts, ace of spades and ace of diamonds, without looking and without further evidence, I KNOW with certainty the last card I will lay down is the ace of clubs. I don’t need to be omniscient to KNOW that it is not possible for the card to be anything but the ace of clubs.

Even expanded to 52 cards in my hand or 104 cards using two decks, employing enough diligence and careful tracking, I can know intrinsically, and without fail, what the last card MUST be. It is only someone easily fooled by their own lack of diligence or their inability to comprehend the “complete” analysis who will think some kind of magic or “omniscience” is required to “know” with certainty what the last card will be.

If motives, circumstances and ends are limited, then omniscience is NOT required to determine that some acts are intrinsically evil. Your claim is tantamount to someone watching a card trick and, because they don’t grasp the intricacies of the “shuffling,” conclude that some kind of “magic” is required merely because of their inability to see how the cards are managed.

Even relying on induction, your claim fails. Produce a single moral act of a hypothetical human being where motives, circumstances or ends are taken to be infinite. There are none. Humans act from a limited set of motives, within space-time and for a limited number of ends. None of these are infinite merely because they exceed a number larger than what can be counted using fingers or toes.

“All men are mortal” is not an inductive claim, based upon seeing that all men who have ever lived have died, it is a logical claim that follows deductively from the nature of living organisms and what is known about the material universe. All living things will die (physically) as a result of entropy. For the logical truth of that claim to be overturned would require supernatural intervention. Given the nature of the material order, “All men are mortal” holds as logically true, in the same way that the last card in my hand must be an ace of clubs follows deductively from the events preceding laying down the card. Ditto with “intrinsically evil acts.”

 

[minkymurph]

Irrelevant. The question was if there is any hypothetical scenario where “rape” could be justified. The probability of this scenario appearing is not relevant.

Why?

Alternatively -

1. If it is highly unlikely the scenario will ever happen the scenario itself is irrelevant so discussing it is a futile exercise.
2. You win. You’ve given an example of a hypothetical scenario where rape can be justified.
   Now what?