Why is it considered morally acceptable to

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zynxensar

Guest
Note: I don’t actually think any of these situations are sinful; I just want to find the reasoning behind it.

If taking medicine has the risk to kill someone, why is it considered morally acceptable to take it?

If advancement in knowledge has the potential to cause more suffering (eg atomic bomb), why is it considered morally acceptable? Won’t living in a simple manner be better?

If driving a car can pollute the environment, why is it considered morally acceptable? Better to spend more time travelling on foot than damaging the atmosphere, no?

If there’s a risk of getting into a car accident, why is it considered morally acceptable to cross the streets or drive a vehicle?

If there’s a risk of being poisoned, why is it morally acceptable to eat and drink?
 
Another,why is it considered morally acceptable to eat foods that are potentially carcinogenic?(cancer causing,diabetes etc)
(Well, I guess you covered that one 🙂 )
 
Last edited:
Morality depends on the exercise of the human virtues (prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, and their offspring virtues…study, decisiveness, cheerfulness, industriousness, patience, etc.).

So we have to take medicine prudently, making full use of all the other virtues and use of our intellect and will.

Cars should be designed as well as possible, in order to minimize damage, but while serving our needs, food, medicine, exchange, etc. The greater good is food distribution, medicine for others, work, family vacations.

A pure environment isn’t the highest good.

Same for these other points.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, so as long as the good consequences outweigh the bad ones the act is considered moral?
 
Well there are different tiers of “goods”.

God is the greatest good.
Human life the next (life)
Human freedom (liberty)
Human pursuit of goods (happiness, true happiness is better than temporal happiness).

So there are different priorities; actions are weighed in terms of these goods.
 
Last edited:
Then again, we could bring in the analogy of a man stealing $10000 from a wealthy person to give to the poor. The good consequences (feeding many homeless people) outweigh the bad (the rich man lost $10000 which is nothing to him) but the action is still considered immoral
 
I see.

Where is the line drawn though? Even if all these goods are fulfilled, what would make the action immoral?
 
if my right to “happiness” requires you giving up your right to freedom (a higher) good, then my taking from you is unjust.

If a woman’s right to pursue her own choices, violates the life of the child growing in her, it’s unjust for her to do anything to jeapordize the life of the child. Life is a higher good than her freedom or pursuit of happiness.
 
Last edited:
I could get hit by a bus.

In the state of mortal sin.

Is it therefore morally acceptable to cross the street?
 
I think it might help to think of ordinary actions and extraordinary actions.

It’s a grave decision to decide to go sky diving with known and unconfessed mortal sins on one’s soul.

It’s not a morally impermissible to cross a street to go to a church to confess one’s sins or go to work that week, planning to go to Confession at lunch that day.
 
Last edited:
Everything comes with risk or side effect. In the medical field, a consideration in using something which especially cause side effect or hazardous, is whether the benefit accrued from its use is higher than its risk. If it must be used, for example radiation, then it has to be controlled so that its hazard is as low as is reasonable.
 
Zynxensar said:
Note: I don’t actually think any of these situations are sinful; I just want to find the reasoning behind it.
Click to expand...
All of this is irrational thought. Please don’t ask us to feed your scrupulosity.

Get some professional help.
 
No. There are three fonts of morality.

Pick up the Catechism and study this.
 
No.

Some acts are intrinsically evil, even if they lead to good consequences (“the ends do not justify the means”).

It’s less talked about, but I presume that some acts are intrinsically good even if bad consequences result (worshipping God even under threat of martyrdom, perhaps).

Acts that are morally neutral, like getting from one place to another or choosing our nourishment, are the ones that can be judged on balance of consequences. But “the slightest risk” of a bad consequence doesn’t make an act evil. We should of course try to minimize any bad side effects of our actions, by eating healthily and making and buying safer, less polluting vehicles.

I type this under the assumption that you are asking a philosophical question. If 1ke is right and you are dealing with personal scruples/obsessive thoughts about what is sinful, then please seek help from a priest and/or therapist.
 
To be moral, an act must have three good fonts of morality:
  1. the intended end
  2. the moral object (i.e. the act must not be inherently immoral)
  3. the totality of the foreseeable circumstances.
If a person acts with good intention, choosing an act that is not intrinsically evil, then the morality of the act depends on the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.

In evaluating the circumstances, we take into account the likelihood of bad or good consequences. So it is moral to drive to the market to buy food, despite the small risk of a fatal car accident. That risk has little moral weight because it is unlikely.

In the case of medicine, the likelihood of good effects on health must be weighed against the possibility of side effects or death.
 
That is the heresy of consequentialism https://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/

Morality is something that is outlined by Holy Mother Church. We form our consciences with the teachings of the Church. It is vital we each do this. When in doubt, consult someone (your godparent, your priest, etc.)
 
What I was hinting at was what Ron_Conte mentioned. It’s impossible to have certainty that the consequences of an action will never be bad. So, do we determine the morality of an action (this is assuming both the object and intention are good) by the likelihood of good consequences vs bad consequences? Eg good consequences have a high chance of occurring from this act while bad ones have a very low chance

Edit: My bad. The way I phrased my comment made it sound like I was talking about consequentialism
 
Last edited:
Yes, we are talking about the third font, in cases where the other two fonts are good. Then the morality depends on the consequences. The likelihood of a consequence occurring affects the moral weight, as does its closeness or remoteness from the chosen act.
 
Zynxensar said:
Note: I don’t actually think any of these situations are sinful; I just want to find the reasoning behind it.

If taking medicine has the risk to kill someone, why is it considered morally acceptable to take it?

If advancement in knowledge has the potential to cause more suffering (eg atomic bomb), why is it considered morally acceptable? Won’t living in a simple manner be better?

If driving a car can pollute the environment, why is it considered morally acceptable? Better to spend more time travelling on foot than damaging the atmosphere, no?

If there’s a risk of getting into a car accident, why is it considered morally acceptable to cross the streets or drive a vehicle?

If there’s a risk of being poisoned, why is it morally acceptable to eat and drink?
Click to expand...
Everything in your OP is nonsense.
You continue to start threads like this. Your scrupulosity is really bad and you should refrain from this.
Many members here have consistently told you to talk to your priest.
Why do you keep starting these threads but ignore the advice to stop it and see your priest!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top