Civil authorities have judged that the death penalty is a cancer to the common good. That is why they are driven to abolish it.Emeraldlady:
Oh come now. We are commanded to forbear when in our judgment there is danger to the good, but if we do not judge it dangerous or harmful it is not forbidden. This passage identifies what is to be done in a particular circumstance. If that circumstance does not exist it does not apply.
This simply is wrong. If the 3rd font is not good, the act is IMMORAL - not merely “unwise”.
First, this assertion is itself questionable:
I’m not going to debate moral theology 101 with you Ender.
The consequences are often judged prudentially. There are trade offs which may be difficult to weigh or they may be simpler. The Popes appear to have high conviction in their assessment.
You seem to be stepping away from using ‘prudential’ judgement and replacing it with ‘personal’ judgement. Perhaps having realised that prudence is a moral virtue that means that man has the capacity within his being to discern good and evil, moral and immoral. If we didn’t then we would have no right to be calling Hitlers judgement of the ‘final solution’ a grave evil. We would only be able to call it ‘unwise’.Rau:
First, this assertion is itself questionable:
1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves…
This, however, is not the point I want to debate. What are the circumstances that make capital punishment immoral, and is it the circumstances themselves or simply an interpretation of their implications that applies? What this all comes down to again seems to be personal judgment.
I use the terms synonymously.
Not at all, and while man does have the capacity to discern between good and evil, we often lack the ability to predict the effects of our actions. Wanting to do the right thing is no guarantee that we will choose the best option, just ask any parent.
Well you’d be wrong. Prudence and personal choice are very different things.Emeraldlady:
I use the terms synonymously.
I think his point that a prudential judgement made about the pros and cons remains “personal” in the sense that 2 well intentioned people might not arrive at the same conclusion.
The church has not justified capital punishment as an extension of self defense. It is an act of justice, not defense.
On the contrary, having become very familiar with his argument, Ender genuinely regards personal and prudential as synonymous.Emeraldlady:
I think his point that a prudential judgement made about the pros and cons remains “personal” in the sense that 2 well intentioned people might not arrive at the same conclusion.
What I’m saying is that the laws of nature presume against killing human beings because life is a natural good and death is a natural evil. There is no presumed right to kill even as a civil punishment. The common good naturally is the end of human justice and always dictates whether the extreme step of the death penalty is just or not.