When Morals and Surviving Clash (Torture, War, Terrorism, etc.)

[oldcatholicguy]

I would be careful with your wording there. Just because we are pro-God doesn’t necessarily mean we have to be misanthropes. Being pro-human and pro-God need not be mutually exclusive. IMHO, true humanism is found in God, for humans are made in God’s image and likeness.

Why is the Church so big on the right to life and the general well being of others?

 

[JackVk]

Why is the Church so big on the right to life and the general well being of others?

What I just said: the Church is big on those because a) humans are made in God’s image and likeness, and b) God commands that we respect the wellbeing of His children by not taking their rights, especially that of life, as taking life is God’s right alone.

It all goes hand-in-hand.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

What I just said: the Church is big on those because a) humans are made in God’s image and likeness, and b) God commands that we respect the wellbeing of His children by not taking their rights, especially that of life, as taking life is God’s right alone.

It all goes hand-in-hand.

So the more accurate description of the Church is pro-God since all it’s pro-human aspects are directly tied and dependent on it being pro-God. It doesn’t go hand in hand, it goes one (pro-human) behind the other (pro-God).

 

[ToeInTheWater]

(P.S. tip o’ the hat to ToeInTheWater for clarifying the Game of Thrones nod. I knew it was more complex than that, I just couldn’t articulate it).

You’re welcome! Also, let me point out that the character, Varys, who tells Ned that it was his mercy that killed the King, and claims that the King would definitely have died that day, is NOT an objective observer, but has his own agenda. If the King hadn’t died when he did, obviously the situation would be very different.

Also note that Ned still had a chance to tell the dying King what was really going on, and he did not, because he wanted to spare his friend anymore pain, which I suppose you could argue is a moral thing to do, but also could argue was a cowardly thing to do (or not do). Ned’s attempt to get around his dilemma by simply changing the King’s will, does nothing to help his cause because his antagonists literally tear it up after the King dies. If anything, it’s when Ned’s wavers from his essentially moral nature that he makes mistakes that set up his fall.

And it’s not like the ruthless characters in the series get away scot-free with their actions either, certainly many of the “evil” characters also wind up either killed or at least politically neutralized. While the author of the series certainly doesn’t think doing good will always end well, I don’t think he means to say doing good will always end with the protagonist “pushing up daisies”. Doing bad tends to result in the same thing too. As does being “grey”. “Valar Morghulis” and all.

And to bring this back to Catholic conceptions of morality, since all men (and women) must eventually die anyway, I think this affects the rightness of using immoral means to achieve the “good end” of mere physical survival.

I think St. Francis (the poster, not the saint) summarizes this very well:

To be honest, I am beginning to see a problem with the use of the term pro-life, which is that it gives people the wrong impression that human life is the number one top priority. Pro-life is about the obligation people have not to kill innocent human beings; it in no way puts maintaining human life above refraining from sin.

 

[GEddie]

Thank you, everyone, for your responses. No, I don’t think a terrorist “deserves” torture. (In fact, because God’s grace is a free gift, I have become annoyed with the word “deserve”; it has the connotation of an entitlement mentality, in my mind).

A Protestant friend once told me: “People think they DESERVE good coffee, but all anybody DESERVES is to go to Hell.”

ICXC NIKA.

 

[GEddie]

Even if maintaining morality was an excellent way to end up breathing through the grass, it would behoove us to maintain it in any case, because it is based upon the law of God.

Just as the boys in 2 Maccabbees were willing to be dismembered by their oppressors, because they’d receive new hands in Heaven; so too, a law that can lead to Eternity must take precedence over maintaining a body we can’t keep anyhow.

Mind you, **specific **methods might still be in question. I for one am not certain about water boarding. Nor do I get the controversy over “humiliation.” Captivity is meant to be humiliating.

But torture, as a recognized principle, should be avoided.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[DanielJT]

First, I want to apologize to the OP. I approached this topic poorly in my response’s tone. I consider concepts as related to Church teaching all the time and most of the time I am in need of serious correction. You’ve read the responses like a true blue. I really appreciate that.

Also, something was posted that reminded me of my favorite Shakespeare monologue, which contains this quote:

“Though justice be thy plea, consider this-
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation.”

But I have to say I am starting to like this a lot more:

A Protestant friend once told me: “People think they DESERVE good coffee, but all anybody DESERVES is to go to Hell.”

ICXC NIKA.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

A Protestant friend once told me: “People think they DESERVE good coffee, but all anybody DESERVES is to go to Hell.”

ICXC NIKA.

Smart friend. I’ll have to remember that saying.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

A Protestant friend once told me: “People think they DESERVE good coffee, but all anybody DESERVES is to go to Hell.”

ICXC NIKA.

Another reason to be glad we are not protestants.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Another reason to be glad we are not protestants.

And why is this another reason to be glad we aren’t Protestants?

 

[GEddie]

And why is this another reason to be glad we aren’t Protestants?

Because as Catholics we hold that human beings are intrinsically good; we do not come from a perspective that “everybody deserves to go to Hell.”

ICXC NIKA.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Because as Catholics we hold that human beings are intrinsically good; we do not come from a perspective that “everybody deserves to go to Hell.”

ICXC NIKA.

Thank you for the clarification. I was interpreting the “everybody deserves to go to Hell” as in God doesn’t owe us anything, as in He doesn’t owe us His love or a relationship with us (which the absence of both is Hell) but that He freely gives it to us.

 

[sallybutler]

The problem with trying to justify torture as a preemptive means to prevent another evil is where you draw the line and who decides what the other evil is.

There are people who will justify the riots happening because of the Brown and Garner decisions as a preemptive way of preventing other people from being killed. There are those who justify killing abortion providers as a preemptive means of preventing abortions. There are those who justify turning off the internet in their countries as preemptive means of preventing uprisings. There are those who justify the NSA listening in on phone calls to pizza parlors as preemptive means of preventing terrorists attacks. There are eco-terrorists who justify blowing up things as preventing pollution that will harm future generations.

Just because you don’t like what someone’s politics are, if you think that one can justify behavior because of a perceived danger, than so can others.

 

[GEddie]

The problem with trying to justify torture as a preemptive means to prevent another evil is where you draw the line and who decides what the other evil is.

There are people who will justify the riots happening because of the Brown and Garner decisions as a preemptive way of preventing other people from being killed. There are those who justify killing abortion providers as a preemptive means of preventing abortions. There are those who justify turning off the internet in their countries as preemptive means of preventing uprisings. There are those who justify the NSA listening in on phone calls to pizza parlors as preemptive means of preventing terrorists attacks. There are eco-terrorists who justify blowing up things as preventing pollution that will harm future generations.

Just because you don’t like what someone’s politics are, if you think that one can justify behavior because of a perceived danger, than so can others.

For some values of “perceived”, obviously.

We perceive with our minds, not our eyes or ears.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Path_Finder]

Again, I will say, attacking a country, an attack on the economy, mode of transportation and military (Pentagon), killing thousands of persons seems to be more serious than NSA spying, killing one abortion provider, protesting what is perceived as a wrongful killing (those killings may well be wrongful but I don’t care to politicize this). The attacks by terrorists seem to be a bit more, imagine if we were Israel and they killed our athletes at the Olympics and were threatening us compared to a story in the news concerning the 5 or whatever number it is of abortion providers killed since 1972. Imagine if we were like Israel and routinely, missiles were fired into the terrain of the United States.

It seems a bit more than politics or even “perceived danger”.

Think of Pearl Harbor which may be a bit similar to 911, what did we do with that? A declaration of war and surely, justly. Obviously, we could declare war in 1941 on an individual country, Imperial Japan. I don’t know if we had that exact option this time against a renegade attack force.

Unless one becomes a total pacifist and some of that thought I totally respect.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Again, I will say, attacking a country, an attack on the economy, mode of transportation and military (Pentagon), killing thousands of persons seems to be more serious than NSA spying, killing one abortion provider, protesting what is perceived as a wrongful killing (those killings may well be wrongful but I don’t care to politicize this). The attacks by terrorists seem to be a bit more, imagine if we were Israel and they killed our athletes at the Olympics and were threatening us compared to a story in the news concerning the 5 or whatever number it is of abortion providers killed since 1972. Imagine if we were like Israel and routinely, missiles were fired into the terrain of the United States.

It seems a bit more than politics or even “perceived danger”.

Think of Pearl Harbor which may be a bit similar to 911, what did we do with that? A declaration of war and surely, justly. Obviously, we could declare war in 1941 on an individual country, Imperial Japan. I don’t know if we had that exact option this time against a renegade attack force.

Unless one becomes a total pacifist and some of that thought I totally respect.

Is torture moral? The Church says no. Ever? The Church says never. End of story.

 

[Path_Finder]

Is torture moral? The Church says no. Ever? The Church says never. End of story.

Is self-defense moral? The Church say yes. Ever? The Church says yes. End of story.

We can reason by our divine gift from God, that if killing in self-defense is sometimes moral, then it goes to show lesser acts are not as bad as killing.

The problem is the Church has not defined what exactly constitutes Torture per the good Father’s words in that one essay.

 

[Tomdstone]

Is self-defense moral? .

It depends on what means you use for self defense. If someone from Alberta Canada threatens to kill you, and as a means of self defense you drop a nuclear bomb on the province, wiping out hundreds of thousands of people, then that would be immoral even if you claim self defense.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Is self-defense moral? The Church say yes. Ever? The Church says yes. End of story.

We can reason by our divine gift from God, that if killing in self-defense is sometimes moral, then it goes to show lesser acts are not as bad as killing.

The problem is the Church has not defined what exactly constitutes Torture per the good Father’s words in that one essay.

-Father’s addendum states that torture is always immoral. No amount of reason or erroneous comparisons to the just taking of a life is going to change this.
-The Church hasn’t defined a lot of stuff, it shouldn’t have to given our divine gift of reason. Strapping a guy to a chair and fake drowning him for info- yeah reason should let you know that that is torture.
-Here let me give you a scenario- On a hot day a 14 year kid steals a car which happens to have a 18 month old in side. He discovers this and abandons the car with the toddler inside it. The police catch him, take him to the station, and want to know where the toddler is and the kid demands a lawyer and shuts his mouth. Well it is an emergency so the police strap him to a chair, and waterboard him until he tells them where the car is. Not torture right? Just an enhanced interrogation technique right? I mean what’s a little fake drowning when we are talking about saving an innocent life.

 

[GEddie]

-Father’s addendum states that torture is always immoral. No amount of reason or erroneous comparisons to the just taking of a life is going to change this.
-The Church hasn’t defined a lot of stuff, it shouldn’t have to given our divine gift of reason. Strapping a guy to a chair and fake drowning him for info- yeah reason should let you know that that is torture.
-Here let me give you a scenario- On a hot day a 14 year kid steals a car which happens to have a 18 month old in side. He discovers this and abandons the car with the toddler inside it. The police catch him, take him to the station, and want to know where the toddler is and the kid demands a lawyer and shuts his mouth. Well it is an emergency so the police strap him to a chair, and waterboard him until he tells them where the car is. Not torture right? Just an enhanced interrogation technique right? I mean what’s a little fake drowning when we are talking about saving an innocent life.

In such an egregious situation, they wouldn’t waste time with waterboarding.

It, however, the kid got knocked around during questioning, I doubt anybody would object very hard.

ICXC NIKA.