Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Question about Humanae Vitae; How far can you apply this?
Topic Started: Apr 21 2006, 10:25 AM (135 Views)
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
From the Cardinal/condom thread, this was posted from Humanae Vitae:

Quote:
 
Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it


So, does the vatican mean this within the context of procreation and the family unit only, or can/does this kind of moral absolutism exceed into other matters as well?
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Aqua Letifer
Apr 21 2006, 11:25 AM
From the Cardinal/condom thread, this was posted from Humanae Vitae:

Quote:
 
Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it


So, does the vatican mean this within the context of procreation and the family unit only, or can/does this kind of moral absolutism exceed into other matters as well?

I am not sure what you mean by moral absolutism-- are you referring to "it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it"?

The point at hand is that "it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good." This happens all the time, and we do it regularly. I am not sure where you are going with this -- perhaps an example?

PS your move.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
[warning]
Posted Image
[/warning]

Well, back to the "is the torturing of terrorists okay" thing. To me, that is definitely NOT "tolerating a lesser moral evil". It just plain doing it. I can't see any other way for this to be interpreted. So, I'm wondering if this is a general moral standpoint the Vatican supports (meaning, torture is never okay, regardless of circumstance), or it should only be applied to family issues.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Aqua Letifer
Apr 21 2006, 11:07 AM
[warning]
Posted Image
[/warning]

Well, back to the "is the torturing of terrorists okay" thing. To me, that is definitely NOT "tolerating a lesser moral evil". It just plain doing it. I can't see any other way for this to be interpreted. So, I'm wondering if this is a general moral standpoint the Vatican supports (meaning, torture is never okay, regardless of circumstance), or it should only be applied to family issues.

It is a general moral principle which can be applied to matters other than sex.

The devil, of course, is in the details
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Aqua Letifer
Apr 21 2006, 12:07 PM
[warning]
Posted Image
[/warning]

Well, back to the "is the torturing of terrorists okay" thing. To me, that is definitely NOT "tolerating a lesser moral evil". It just plain doing it. I can't see any other way for this to be interpreted. So, I'm wondering if this is a general moral standpoint the Vatican supports (meaning, torture is never okay, regardless of circumstance), or it should only be applied to family issues.

Rick is correct-- it is a general moral consideration.

It would not be too difficult to develop a prudential moral argument for why torture as a means of extracting information is morally licit, provided that such things as (1) the moral certainty that the person was withholding information of such proportion as to justify the action; and (2) that the State was acting legally for its own self preservation. Perhaps some other conditions might apply, but none that come to mind.

The rights to self determination, freedom of conscience, and bodily integrity are all very important, but one does not have any absolute right to commit an act of violence, nor to withhold information that in justice ought to be given to the legitimate authorities for the preservation of innocent life and the common good.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
ivorythumper
Apr 21 2006, 12:23 PM
Aqua Letifer
Apr 21 2006, 12:07 PM
[warning]
Posted Image
[/warning]

Well, back to the "is the torturing of terrorists okay" thing.  To me, that is definitely NOT "tolerating a lesser moral evil".  It just plain doing it.  I can't see any other way for this to be interpreted.  So, I'm wondering if this is a general moral standpoint the Vatican supports (meaning, torture is never okay, regardless of circumstance), or it should only be applied to family issues.

Rick is correct-- it is a general moral consideration.

It would not be too difficult to develop a prudential moral argument for why torture as a means of extracting information is morally licit, provided that such things as (1) the moral certainty that the person was withholding information of such proportion as to justify the action; and (2) that the State was acting legally for its own self preservation. Perhaps some other conditions might apply, but none that come to mind.

The rights to self determination, freedom of conscience, and bodily integrity are all very important, but one does not have any absolute right to commit an act of violence, nor to withhold information that in justice ought to be given to the legitimate authorities for the preservation of innocent life and the common good.

Well okay, but what I can't seem to get around is, these things you listed: self determination, freedom of conscience, and bodily integrity... are they allowed by a general understanding mankind has with itself, or by something more Universal?

Because it appears as if you're saying that, by committing an act of violence, or witholding information, etc., you're forefiting these rights? If these rights were made by mankind, then sure I can see that, but if they're something Universal and not made my mankind, I don't see how we can be allowed to take them away from others, or decide who is allowed to keep them and who is not.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply