Three sources of morality

[AlanFromWichita]

Also, I am not sure I understand what you said – "in the first instance ( “moral law” ) there is no civil penalty?
Sort of a mixed analogy…

Isn’t it proper , though , to have a moral penalty for a moral negligence? And a civil penalty for a civil negligence (even if no one is “hurt”) – eg: leave a child in a hot car in a parking lot (negligence!!!) if the police find her (even if not hurt) there will be penalties – possibly even the temporary / permanent loss of the child.

Oh well, I segue…

In this case are you saying that the moral punishment is tied to the natural outcome, (possibly outside civil jurisdiction,) and may be punishment in addition to civil penalties? So you might lose the child but in a way the police could not accomplish other than to take the child away? (e.g. death)

Alan

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In this case are you saying that the moral punishment is tied to the natural outcome, (possibly outside civil jurisdiction,) and may be punishment in addition to civil penalties? So you might lose the child but in a way the police could not accomplish other than to take the child away? (e.g. death)

Alan

All I was getting at is that each type of violation has its own punishment.

The moral grounds of negligence might not be there at all – for example, perhaps the parent was simply detained because of unforseeable circumstances beyond her/his control. The civil penalties are still going to take place, although there are no reasonable “moral” grounds for punishing the parent – but political opinion and extreme cases don’t tend to mix well.

The idea of the case where the child dies may aggrivate whatever guilt exists for a moral action – as we have discussed so far – but it doesn’t determine guilt itself according to Ender’s approach. Either the act is moral, or it isn’t.

Although, Alan, you are correct – the death of the child is itself a natural punishment for the mistake, in this world. But natural consequences and the “wrath” of God against sin do not necessarily coincide.

Our priest gave a homily about a beaurocratic/preferential rule set up by an Archbishop (Leveda) that was ignored by the Dominicans once the Bishop was no longer in control of the Diocese. Eg: since the bishop left, there was no reason to obey the arbitrary command of the past bishop, and only the preferential rule of the next bishop to come would matter… It was sort of an opportunistic interpretation.

At the end of the homily, the priest commented about a fire breaking out at the church later that year (unrelated) – and although he didn’t think is was the wrath of God, he did wonder about it out loud in the homily. (My wife didn’t like the homily ).

In the sense that God made the natural law – in some sense arbitrarily, and that consequences follow due to the nature of existence in this world, yes I would agree that there is a punishment – but not that it is necessarily a moral (wrath of God) punishment in the sense of Guilt. Or else, deformity and calamity would be only signs of God’s wrath for specific sins, and I am certain that is not the case.
The very fact that we have not union with God , now, fully, is itself the root cause of most of these calamities. In the case of dead children, historically, there are recorded instances of Saints (and even a Pope I think) resurrecting the dead.
Eg: similar to Elijah.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

if someone is hurt as a direct result of my action where that outcome could not reasonably be foreseen then I am neither morally nor civilly responsible.

manslaughter?

I believe manslaughter involves a reckless disregard for the risks inherent in one’s actions. That is, the possibility of a harmful outcome was clear and was clearly ignored.

Isn’t it proper , though , to have a moral penalty for a moral negligence?

We owe a debt for our moral sins that will have to be paid at some point but it is not a debt that our government collects.

Ender

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I believe manslaughter involves a reckless disregard for the risks inherent in one’s actions. That is, the possibility of a harmful outcome was clear and was clearly ignored.

…

We owe a debt for our moral sins that will have to be paid at some point but it is not a debt that our government collects.

Ender

I suppose this is a tangent, since the OP is addressing the cause of morality – and we are discussing guilt based on effects as a related notion. But, I think that God is not ignorant of the future and past of a person, and there is scripturally (for example) the man at the pool who is Paralyzed, to whom Jesus comments : ~ Go and sin no more unless worse befalls you.

To be more focused on your reply:
The Government gains nothing for collecting the debt, to be sure, so I agree to that part. However, there is more to the question – for also scripturally the fall of Israel in history was recorded with God saying at one point ~?~ I have paid her back double for all her faults. Clearly this refers to the debt owed (communally) being at least partially paid back in this world – I’ll have to find the exact quotes.

So the problem is that we are looking at the idea of morality and sinning (act) morally in a sort of theoretical vacuum. Can a person share “guilt” for a sin not committed intentionally ? ( Because one lacks communion with God to KNOW the proper action to take? )

–

Consider a summary of “The Oregonian” pp:B3, Feb 7,2007
Article by Rick Bella and Annie Martin.

A man, Fred Stephens (25), who once went to a Jesuit Highschool in Tacoma is found dead Sunday morning at a hot tub.
Another man, Michael Hessemer (23), who appears to be a protestant friend of Stephens apparently got into a fight with him – no one is sure.

Michael Hessemer is presently in Jail – regardless of whether he is technically guilty of anything – and is charged with manslaughter. A protestant christian, involved in youth ministry – who is “heartbroken” over the loss of his friend Stephens, is receiving a penalty on the basis of suspicion.

–

Now, I suppose Hessemer may be innocent (a probability of someone religiously committed to Jesus – assuming he truly is). Yet Hessemer is paying a penalty for a moral action (Thou shalt not kill) non-technically. I suppose one can argue, Hessemer isn’t paying a penalty “officially” – but not even a sparrow falls to the ground without the consent of God. Now, I definitely don’t think from what I have read so far that Hessemer is any worse than the rest of the world – He’s no bin-Laden.

So, I am led to wonder, are there also two aspects to a moral act – the “technical” morality, and the “practical” morality? How much of the distinctions made regardig “guilt” are technicalities?

 

[Ender]

So the problem is that we are looking at the idea of morality and sinning (act) morally in a sort of theoretical vacuum.

I think we’re getting into difficulties because we haven’t completely separated moral sins from legal crimes and we need to do that. Some of the criteria are the same but other criteria are not.

Can a person share “guilt” for a sin not committed intentionally?

Yes … sometimes.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

are there also two aspects to a moral act – the “technical” morality, and the “practical” morality? How much of the distinctions made regarding “guilt” are technicalities?

I don’t believe so. Our understanding of a person’s guilt may be wrong and we may err in the degree of punishment we inflict but our subjective evaluation (or mis-evaluation) does not change his objective guilt.

Ender

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think we’re getting into difficulties because we haven’t completely separated moral sins from legal crimes and we need to do that. Some of the criteria are the same but other criteria are not.
Yes … sometimes.

It seems that Ron gave up, a pity.
If you have a brief distinction to make, that would be nice – as it seems that the heavenly court system, and final judgement would imply that a very similar situation will eventually exist at judgement. Although, Christ won’t be fooled by technicalities, as he is the truth.

I don’t believe so. Our understanding of a person’s guilt may be wrong and we may err in the degree of punishment we inflict but our subjective evaluation (or mis-evaluation) does not change his objective guilt.

Ender

I wasn’t claiming it changed the objective guilt, but I was concerned that mis-evaluation may not be sufficient to excuse an individual from sin. I’ll also note that the passage in the CCC being cited doesn’t say this is the only way one may be guilty of “ignorance”, so it would seem there is a bit of a risk in over-evaluating the moral ethic as outlined in the CCC…

Eg: Psalm 19:2-3
Cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be upright and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

From secret faults to presumptuous sins, David was concerned about his “transgression”. And the Mosaic law, as a prefigurement of the divine law, has specific provissions for ritual sins wherein the offender did not know they had committed it. (Taboos).

Also,
Thank you Ender for the polite conversation, I have really enjoyed your thoughts.

 

[Ender]

If you have a brief distinction to make, that would be nice

We are required to judge another’s actions but are forbidden to judge his intentions - except as they can be deduced from his actions.

Christ won’t be fooled by technicalities

Yes, he is the judge of intentions.

I was concerned that mis-evaluation may not be sufficient to excuse an individual from sin.

Interestingly, ignorance of the civil law is no excuse for violating the law but - sometimes - ignorance of the moral law can lesson or eliminate one’s responsibility. The fact that one follows his conscience is, however, not sufficient to eliminate guilt if one has allowed his conscience to be mal-formed.

Thank you Ender for the polite conversation, I have really enjoyed your thoughts.

I have enjoyed it as well.

Ender