Comments on: Abortion, Capital Punishment and War, One of these things is not like the other http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/27/abortion-capital-punishment-and-war-one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/ Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective. Thu, 24 May 2012 16:03:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: foxfier http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/27/abortion-capital-punishment-and-war-one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/#comment-23089 foxfier Thu, 28 Jan 2010 04:20:39 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=15251#comment-23089 <i>a bit different from your interpretation</i> No, it isn't. Your argument against there being a difference between war and abortion was exactly as I stated. <I>Unfortunately as in many of these discussions it often turns out that folks are not really interested in finding out or letting others find out the “Truth” or their truth and try to explain it in logical and dispassionate ways.</i> Exactly why I am not going to waste any further time, barring some sign of actual interest in information-- as opposed to dancing from claim to claim, then accusing those responding to you of "avoiding the argument." If you admit any instance where self defense, unto death, is admissible-- then you commit the same "inconsistency" you accuse the Church of committing. You may draw the line in a different spot, but still admit the difference exists. <I>It seems they are more interested in formulas than arguments and convictions ( I don’t mean just adopted beliefs) they can be passionate enough to defend.</i> A logical argument <I>is</i> a formula. And there is no inherent exclusion of conviction in an adopted belief, let alone an exclusion of passion in adopted beliefs. <I>It was not me who offered to set me straight remember.</i> Amazingly, it was not I who offered to set you straight, either; I offered, if you were truly trying to understand, to attempt to aid you in understanding. The latter has happened, but the prior is in doubt. a bit different from your interpretation

No, it isn’t. Your argument against there being a difference between war and abortion was exactly as I stated.

Unfortunately as in many of these discussions it often turns out that folks are not really interested in finding out or letting others find out the “Truth” or their truth and try to explain it in logical and dispassionate ways.

Exactly why I am not going to waste any further time, barring some sign of actual interest in information– as opposed to dancing from claim to claim, then accusing those responding to you of “avoiding the argument.”

If you admit any instance where self defense, unto death, is admissible– then you commit the same “inconsistency” you accuse the Church of committing. You may draw the line in a different spot, but still admit the difference exists.

It seems they are more interested in formulas than arguments and convictions ( I don’t mean just adopted beliefs) they can be passionate enough to defend.

A logical argument is a formula.
And there is no inherent exclusion of conviction in an adopted belief, let alone an exclusion of passion in adopted beliefs.

It was not me who offered to set me straight remember.

Amazingly, it was not I who offered to set you straight, either; I offered, if you were truly trying to understand, to attempt to aid you in understanding. The latter has happened, but the prior is in doubt.

]]> By: w reindl http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/27/abortion-capital-punishment-and-war-one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/#comment-23088 w reindl Thu, 28 Jan 2010 04:10:11 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=15251#comment-23088 Sorry you feel that way I do have to respond to your interpretation - insinuation that: You futher claimed that, due to war and capital punishment being decided by the “system” or a “king,” Hitler was somehow justified. I never claimed that . What i did say is: IF your interpretation that responsibility for moral decision is vested in those of proper authority THEN The Germans where justified to line up behind their Fuehrer I think quite a bit different from your interpretation Unfortunately as in many of these discussions it often turns out that folks are not really interested in finding out or letting others find out the "Truth" or their truth and try to explain it in logical and dispassionate ways. It seems they are more interested in formulas than arguments and convictions ( I don't mean just adopted beliefs) they can be passionate enough to defend. It was not me who offered to set me straight remember. the task obvious became too difficult Thank you for your time Sorry you feel that way

I do have to respond to your interpretation – insinuation that:

You futher claimed that, due to war and capital punishment being decided by the “system” or a “king,” Hitler was somehow justified.

I never claimed that . What i did say is:
IF your interpretation that responsibility for moral decision is vested in those of proper authority THEN
The Germans where justified to line up behind their Fuehrer I think quite a bit different from your interpretation
Unfortunately as in many of these discussions it often turns out that folks are not really interested in finding out or letting others find out the “Truth” or their truth and try to explain it in logical and dispassionate ways.
It seems they are more interested in formulas than arguments and convictions ( I don’t mean just adopted beliefs) they can be passionate enough to defend.
It was not me who offered to set me straight remember.
the task obvious became too difficult
Thank you for your time

]]> By: foxfier http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/27/abortion-capital-punishment-and-war-one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/#comment-23087 foxfier Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:42:30 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=15251#comment-23087 <a href="http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/27/abortion-capital-punishment-and-war-one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/#comment-30846" rel="nofollow">Your original argument</a> was that by differentiating between murder and abortion on one hand, and war and capital punishment on the other, there is a "double standard" in place. You futher claimed that, due to war and capital punishment being decided by the "system" or a "king," Hitler was somehow justified. If you cannot manage to hold to your own argument and feel the need to accuse those who do of dodging the topic, I have no further time for you. Your original argument was that by differentiating between murder and abortion on one hand, and war and capital punishment on the other, there is a “double standard” in place.

You futher claimed that, due to war and capital punishment being decided by the “system” or a “king,” Hitler was somehow justified.

If you cannot manage to hold to your own argument and feel the need to accuse those who do of dodging the topic, I have no further time for you.

]]> By: w reindl http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/27/abortion-capital-punishment-and-war-one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/#comment-23086 w reindl Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:54:33 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=15251#comment-23086 You are avoiding the argument. I like you to comment on the Jaegerstaetter example I gave , as it is pertinent to this discussion. The argument was not whether killing might be allowed or not the argument IS to determine within a morally consistent framework when killing is allowed and it expanded - the argument that is - to who is allowed or has to make these choices. Please use the Iraq example I gave the pope determined that the just war theorem indicate that the looming - at that time- war would be unjust. Yet after the war started there was no further comment that participating in a unjust war - according to the just war theorem - is tantamount to murder. It is at that point that moral inconsistencies arise because murder is murder if nothing else killing a conscious being adds torture to the act of murder which - if one has to /wants to categorize these things-. The torture part comes with the fear and realization that you have to die I presume , never had to do it myself-. I think the abortion/ war/ capital punishment/... debate goes much deeper since there are corollaries to all this. And it are these corollaries that , in a practical sense might be even less palatable to us as a society than the results of the Killing argument. In any event I think any relativism in arguing the case should be avoided otherwise anything goes and the result is strictly utilitarian devoid of any claim to morality. one has to be able to argue the case consistently and continuously starting with abortion if you like and ending with war if you like. I am sure you understand what I mean. You asked in the beginning whether I am serious. I think this is and has been the defining challenge for the Church in the last and undoubtedly this century. The Church seemed to have failed its test during WW1 and WW2 (as well as many other conflicts thereafter. (see Jaegerstaetter example consider it a case study) But this does not mean we cannot remedy our transgressions in the future. Splitting up the argument of killing or shall I say murder - which would be unjustified killing and which would equally apply to abortion and war - certain wars etc into separately compartments to my mind is a moral dodge and with it makes our whole stand immoral one acts morally or does not. A murderer does not always have to kill in order to create immense suffering. it enough if he does it only in one case and not the other. thanks for the info on writing . the following is just a test so please ignore it. i test test test /i You are avoiding the argument. I like you to comment on the Jaegerstaetter example I gave , as it is pertinent to this discussion. The argument was not whether killing might be allowed or not the argument IS to determine within a morally consistent framework when killing is allowed and it expanded – the argument that is – to who is allowed or has to make these choices.
Please use the Iraq example I gave the pope determined that the just war theorem indicate that the looming – at that time- war would be unjust. Yet after the war started there was no further comment that participating in a unjust war – according to the just war theorem – is tantamount to murder.
It is at that point that moral inconsistencies arise
because murder is murder if nothing else killing a conscious being adds torture to the act of murder which – if one has to /wants to categorize these things-. The torture part comes with the fear and realization that you have to die I presume , never had to do it myself-.
I think the abortion/ war/ capital punishment/… debate goes much deeper since there are corollaries to all this. And it are these corollaries that , in a practical sense might be even less palatable to us as a society than the results of the Killing argument.
In any event I think any relativism in arguing the case should be avoided otherwise anything goes and the result is strictly utilitarian devoid of any claim to
morality. one has to be able to argue the case consistently and continuously starting with abortion if you like and ending with war if you like.
I am sure you understand what I mean.
You asked in the beginning whether I am serious. I think this is and has been the defining challenge for the Church in the last and undoubtedly this century.
The Church seemed to have failed its test during WW1 and WW2 (as well as many other conflicts thereafter. (see Jaegerstaetter example consider it a case study)
But this does not mean we cannot remedy our transgressions in the future.
Splitting up the argument of killing or shall I say murder – which would be unjustified killing and which would equally apply to abortion and war – certain wars etc into separately compartments to my mind is a moral dodge and with it makes our whole stand immoral one acts morally or does not.
A murderer does not always have to kill in order to create immense suffering. it enough if he does it only in one case and not the other.
thanks for the info on writing . the following is just a test so please ignore it.
i test test test /i

]]> By: foxfier http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/27/abortion-capital-punishment-and-war-one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/#comment-23085 foxfier Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:46:51 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=15251#comment-23085 Use I to start, and /i to end. <i>In case of war there might be the justification to as you call it self defense etc. the problem arises to determine when it is Justified.</i> If you agree that it is ever justified, then your complaint that allowing the death penalty is inconsistent, due to allowing killing, is invalid. It becomes a matter of you not agreeing where the line is drawn, rather than if the line should be drawn at all. Use I to start, and /i to end.

In case of war there might be the justification to as you call it self defense etc. the problem arises to determine when it is Justified.

If you agree that it is ever justified, then your complaint that allowing the death penalty is inconsistent, due to allowing killing, is invalid. It becomes a matter of you not agreeing where the line is drawn, rather than if the line should be drawn at all.

]]> By: w reindl http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/11/27/abortion-capital-punishment-and-war-one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/#comment-23084 w reindl Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:47:13 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=15251#comment-23084 I tried to quote a passage of yours but it did not work I am too ignorant in these and of course also other matters If you could give me some more detailed instructions I would appreciate it. Thank you. I tried to quote a passage of yours but it did not work I am too ignorant in these and of course also other matters If you could give me some more detailed instructions I would appreciate it. Thank you.

]]>