His moral duty is to love God and love neighbor. How is going to war, without any guarantees, a better good than caring for ones parents? I am not aware of any commandment to go to war, however there is one to honor your parents.For instance, say a person has a duty to take care of his aged parents and he is going to go and feed them now. But then his country is invaded by an attacking force, such that if he does not go to the front lines, then his country will lose.
What then is his moral duty? Surely he cannot morally omit one or the other duties?
But I don’t think he can choose one good w/o sinfully omitting the other good in my example.If it is a case of actual conflicting goods – say, marriage versus religious life – one chooses and runs with it; it is no more complex than that. We are secondary causes within the framework of God’s world, and He accommodates our choices, whatever they may be.
In my scenario his country is guaranteed to win if he goes and to lose if he doesn’t. So he cannot leave the state in good conscience to the mercy of its enemies and he cannot simply forget about his obligation to his family either. So that’s the dilemma.His moral duty is to love God and love neighbor. How is going to war, without any guarantees, a better good than caring for ones parents? I am not aware of any commandment to go to war, however there is one to honor your parents.
Frankly that’s a ridiculous example. If one person does or does not go to war that makes the difference between winning or losing??? Give me a break.In my scenario his country is guaranteed to win if he goes and to lose if he doesn’t. So he cannot leave the state in good conscience to the mercy of its enemies and he cannot simply forget about his obligation to his family either. So that’s the dilemma.
This. And what the post above mentions: there is nothing intrinsically good about fighting in a war. We do it because temporal life sometimes obliges us to, but we are morally obligated to our parents.Frankly that’s a ridiculous example. If one person does or does not go to war that makes the difference between winning or losing??? Give me a break.
Well, what if the one person is the commanding General? He is surely obliged to report for duty and call on someone else to care for his parents. They won’t starve in one day.Frankly that’s a ridiculous example. If one person does or does not go to war that makes the difference between winning or losing??? Give me a break.
Well, first of all he sees to it that his parents are cared for. If this person is so talented and gifted as to save his or her country, he or she, certainly has the ability and friends to make sure his parents are in good hands.In my scenario his country is guaranteed to win if he goes and to lose if he doesn’t. So he cannot leave the state in good conscience to the mercy of its enemies and he cannot simply forget about his obligation to his family either. So that’s the dilemma.
Well I was quite wrong about the “intrinsic” part -how did I miss that? But the point is, that two perfectly legitimate obligations are clashing and I don’t really think that double-effect can solve this problem.This. And what the post above mentions: there is nothing intrinsically good about fighting in a war. We do it because temporal life sometimes obliges us to, but we are morally obligated to our parents.
I know where this conversation is gong so I need not reply further, but I think that the original dilemma has to be solved on its own terms and not just assumed away by introducing extraneous info.Well, first of all he sees to it that his parents are cared for. If this person is so talented and gifted as to save his or her country, he or she, certainly has the ability and friends to make sure his parents are in good hands.
His or her parents have obviously raised a well education and gifted person. They would approve of his or her decision to lead their country in battle. They probably were military people to begin with and saw to it that he or she had been properly trained.
I actually have a different answer now that I think about it.Well, first of all he sees to it that his parents are cared for. If this person is so talented and gifted as to save his or her country, he or she, certainly has the ability and friends to make sure his parents are in good hands.
His or her parents have obviously raised a well education and gifted person. They would approve of his or her decision to lead their country in battle. They probably were military people to begin with and saw to it that he or she had been properly trained.
If there is a pressing need to care for one’s parents - let us say her parents became suddenly sick and need to go to the hospital. Or, she is a sole care-giver and cannot leave her parents because no one is available to relieve her then she is not under an obligation to attend Mass. Hopefully she is in a parish where homebound ministers will bring her and her parents the Eucharist. God is not unreasonable.I actually have a different answer now that I think about it.
It’s possible that either the parents insist on the obligation or they give up their obligation in order that the son should fight.
In the first case, it is wrong to insist since it puts their good ahead of the state and in the second case the son is released to fight.
So one may safely assume that they will reason in either way and in either way the son can fight.
But what principle allows someone to give up their rights and release others from legitimate duties? I think that this principle is “no one is obliged to make use of their rights unless they are inalienable rights”.
Is that true? And does this analysis apply to conflicts b/t intrinsic goods (for instance between going to mass and tending to one’s parents -this would be 3rd commandment vs 4th commandment)?
Seek advice from ones confessor…Well I was quite wrong about the “intrinsic” part -how did I miss that? But the point is, that two perfectly legitimate obligations are clashing and I don’t really think that double-effect can solve this problem.
That’s a good answer.If there is a pressing need to care for one’s parents - let us say her parents became suddenly sick and need to go to the hospital. Or, she is a sole care-giver and cannot leave her parents because no one is available to relieve her then she is not under an obligation to attend Mass. Hopefully she is in a parish where homebound ministers will bring her and her parents the Eucharist. God is not unreasonable.
In this instance, unless the person in Superman, he’s much more likely to die in war than to win it, and then what would happen to his parents?For instance, say a person has a duty to take care of his aged parents and he is going to go and feed them now. But then his country is invaded by an attacking force, such that if he does not go to the front lines, then his country will lose.
What then is his moral duty? Surely he cannot morally omit one or the other duties?
The teaching of the Church is that -deliberately- missing mass on Sundays or Holy Days is sinful, but missing it because you don’t have the opportunity to go, or are sick or something is not a sin.That’s a good answer.
So then omitting mass is not intrinsically evil and so it is extrinsically good?
But either way, is the reason for choosing between intrinsically good duties that the one who is owe the duty can give up his rights to your obligated duty?
You must live in a very black and white world. No missing Mass in not intrinsically evil.That’s a good answer.
So then omitting mass is not intrinsically evil and so it is extrinsically good?
But either way, is the reason for choosing between intrinsically good duties that the one who is owe the duty can give up his rights to your obligated duty?