What is the root of all evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarianD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi catholictiger,
I am not au fait with this. Can you explain please?
God Bless,
Colmcille.🙂
the utilitarian philosopher believes that the root of moral goodness is what brings the most happiness to society

there are some pretty crazy claims with this

kill one perfectly health person so save 3 lives of people who are sick.

it would be better to have someone who is a drain on society in captivity with no contact with humans then him being in society.

these people probably think abortion is ok becuase the women will be more happy if they don’t have to go through with the pregnancy

unfortantly i think alot of people think this way not this crazy but alittle like this

the best form of ethics is the natural law, the moral good is a good that follows the laws of what is natural. I don’t know to much about it i just know that this is what we should follow and what the church follows
 
According to Christopher Hitchens, religion is the root of all evil. Rush Limbaugh thinks that the Clintons are the root of all evil. Lots of people think that technology is the root of all evil or money or sex or drugs or socialists or atheists. What isn’t the root of all evil these days?

I think this sort of “one thing is the cause of everything” thinking is unhelpful. Such demonizing isn’t likely to make the world better than it is.
 
the best form of ethics is the natural law, the moral good is a good that follows the laws of what is natural. I don’t know to much about it i just know that this is what we should follow and what the church follows
Is rape “natural”? Is war “nature;”? Is it “natural” to let sick people die a “natural” death or should doctors intervene? Is it “natural” to wear clothes when it is hot outside? Is it “natural” for human males to have only one sexual partner?

I don’t think a morality based on what is natural gets you anywhere. Any description of the way things are (what is natural) can’t tell us how things ought to be (what is moral). What is natural and what is moral are two very different questions.
 
Is rape “natural”? Is war “nature;”? Is it “natural” to let sick people die a “natural” death or should doctors intervene? Is it “natural” to wear clothes when it is hot outside? Is it “natural” for human males to have only one sexual partner?

I don’t think a morality based on what is natural gets you anywhere. Any description of the way things are (what is natural) can’t tell us how things ought to be (what is moral). What is natural and what is moral are two very different questions.
sorry i don’t know enough about this theory to answer your questions sorry 😦
 
Is rape “natural”? Is war “nature;”? Is it “natural” to let sick people die a “natural” death or should doctors intervene? Is it “natural” to wear clothes when it is hot outside? Is it “natural” for human males to have only one sexual partner?

I don’t think a morality based on what is natural gets you anywhere. Any description of the way things are (what is natural) can’t tell us how things ought to be (what is moral). What is natural and what is moral are two very different questions.
You probably don’t agree, but this is what the Catholic Church teaches on the natural law. It is very basic and can be expanded upon, but since it’s from the Catechism, it has to be truncated in order to fit into a book that explains all the doctrines of the Church.

The very last paragraph probably addresses your questions above more than the rest of the passage.
I. The Natural Moral Law

1954
Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.
1955 The “divine and natural” law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:
Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense. . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:
Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.
1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known “by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.” The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.
Taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, at usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3.shtml
 
Is rape “natural”? Is war “nature;”? Is it “natural” to let sick people die a “natural” death or should doctors intervene? Is it “natural” to wear clothes when it is hot outside? Is it “natural” for human males to have only one sexual partner?

I don’t think a morality based on what is natural gets you anywhere. Any description of the way things are (what is natural) can’t tell us how things ought to be (what is moral). What is natural and what is moral are two very different questions.
In Catholic thought, what is natural and what is moral are identical. All sin is unnatural, disordered. So rape is disordered, war is disordered, there will always be a struggle surrounding the right time to “pull the plug” because not valuing life is disordered, shame is disordered-a condition we live with in this life as we’re not able to overcome it now-and we, believe, sex is often misused as a drug, another of our addictions or disorders that doesn’t bring the final happiness or satisfaction we innately desire…
 
In Catholic thought, what is natural and what is moral are identical. All sin is unnatural, disordered.
The problem for me is the notion that we can use this identification of morality with nature as a tool for moral discernment. What is moral as how things ought to be. Usually people of think of what is natural as how things are now or how things would be if there were no human social institutions. I can’t see what sort of leap in logic gets us from how things are now to how things ought to be in the future. What must be going on here is a very different understanding of “natural” which is continually conflated with the more usual uses of the term as convenient for condemning or upholding certain states of affairs.
 
Aside from money, what do you see to be the root of all evil?

I personally see Hedonism on the root of all evil. People place what feels good over what is good, and this leads to destruction of others and destruction of self. I think money stems from this root, because one only wants excessive amounts of money so he/she can buy things that will “enhance” his/her life.

A good example of the evil of placing what feels good over what is good can be seen in an obese person. Sweets and junk food feels good. Broccoli and exercise? Not so much. So the man eats what tastes good and stays away from healthy foods. He does what feels good and stays away from exercise, which can be painful for the untrained person. As a result, he ends up gaining more and more weight until he destroys himself through his excess fat.

In the example of issues such as pornography, masturbation, lust, etc., the example is not as concrete, but it can be seen at times. Simply watch the Jerry Springer show (which is a guilty pleasure of mine) or the Maury show (another guilty pleasure) and you’ll see what I mean.

The desire to do what feels good always is what destroys not only ourselves, but others as well. He who plays all day must work all night. He who works for half a day can rest for a day and a half. The point is, if you do what is right instead of what feels right, then you’ll be set. If you follow the example of the world and do what feels right instead of what is right, then you’ll destroy yourself and those around you through your destructive, increasingly insatiable (because those who give in to their desires will increasingly need more and more of that desire to feel satisfied) desires.

Basically, the timeless advice of “Follow your heart” isn’t always the best decision, because your heart doesn’t always know what’s best. We think we know best, but God knows better. As the Lord said…

Who is this that darkens My Counsel with words without knowledge? - Job 38:2
For Catholics, there are several:
  • Accepting the notion that “what’s allowed” is good enough.
  • The inability or refusal to “judge” good from evil in our own lives.
Satan will do the rest.
 
The problem for me is the notion that we can use this identification of morality with nature as a tool for moral discernment. What is moral as how things ought to be. Usually people of think of what is natural as how things are now or how things would be if there were no human social institutions. I can’t see what sort of leap in logic gets us from how things are now to how things ought to be in the future. What must be going on here is a very different understanding of “natural” which is continually conflated with the more usual uses of the term as convenient for condemning or upholding certain states of affairs.
We can only speculate about how things would be without human institutions but if we didn’t already have an innate sense of right and wrong then it should be impossible-or at least unsupportable-for us to experience moral outrage at, say, the abuse of a child. And this translates into the concept of a “natural morality”, the fact that though there are things which are simply objectively wrong for all humans to do, some do them nonetheless.
 
Satan! Satan is usually identified with the yetser ha-ra, the evil impulse.
 
I’m going to cheat a bit and say that money is NOT the root of all evil but rather the love of money. 😉
But all money is is paper and electronic zeros. How can you love that?

Besides money or fiat currency is “in God we trust” remember?

However, I would accept false gods being the root of all real evil. Doing what one needs to do to stay alive is not evil per se.
 
But all money is is paper and electronic zeros. How can you love that?

Besides money or fiat currency is “in God we trust” remember?

However, I would accept false gods being the root of all real evil. Doing what one needs to do to stay alive is not evil per se.
Hi ProVobis,
I think that this can illustrate how love of money corrupts:

‘If then you have not been faithful in the unjust mammon; who will trust you with that which is the true?’
Luke 16:11

Money is tainted and love of money is corrupted love.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
Selfishness, thinking of your our pleasures is the root of all evil.All evil can be traced back to this, that is why Jesus wants us to care for the sick and poor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top