(June 22, 2015 at 3:51 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:34 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I believe the death penalty is immoral as well, so I would be a hypocrite if I said this was moral. Unless she acted to save her child's life (which doesn't sound like it) I do not think it was a moral act.

But I do think that the woman's culpability is very much lessened if not completely eliminated due to the shock she was in. I would never condemn her or say she is a bad person.

And as you can see, even in our judicial system... murder remains a crime, but a person's verdict is subjective. 

You do not have to agree with my versions of morality. Likewise, I do not agree with yours either. We can have different morals and moral standards, and that is fine. I still respect your views, and I still think you are a good person despite our differences.

Well... I've changed my mind about whether you're a *good* person.  I absolutely do not respect the views you have, especially regarding this (do you really think she wasn't acting to save her child's life??? Seriously??), and I think it's vile you can still hold the views you have even after reading the (true life) story I told.

Wow.

That is fine. I respect your opinion about me. I still think you are a good person.

Well hold on a second there... if this was self defense (also including defense of another person's life), than I absolutely do not think it was an immoral act. The way you described it to me didn't sound like it was though.

Just to clarify, this is what I believe self defense to be -

If someone is attacking you (or another), you have the right to exert as much force as is necessary to stop them. No more, and no less. If that amount of force results in the offenders death, if is justified and not immoral.

If this was the case, then I absolutely agree that her actions were moral.

But I believe the only time it is moral to take another person's life is in the case of self defense. This means I oppose any death sentences, in whatever form they may come.

---

(June 22, 2015 at 3:58 am)Neimenovic Wrote: I share Becca's sentiment. I can't grasp how you can hold such abhorrent beliefs, CL. You don't sound like a good person to me.

That is fine. I respect your opinion.

---

(June 22, 2015 at 4:53 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 9:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I was referring to profanity and name calling.

I'm not an idiot; I know what you meant. But consider this:

What would you think of someone who used perfectly inoffensive, reasonable language to express the view that other people are deserving of torture? We've already established that thoughts and opinions are at least as bad as deeds to you even if they're never actually carried out - would you consider this person foul and profane?

Ok, just making sure.

I disagree with whatever person would say that.

I would consider this person's opinion foul and profane, yes. But I would try not to make the conclusive decision that a particular person is a bad person.

(June 22, 2015 at 11:37 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 3:51 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Well... I've changed my mind about whether you're a *good* person.  I absolutely do not respect the views you have, especially regarding this (do you really think she wasn't acting to save her child's life??? Seriously??), and I think it's vile you can still hold the views you have even after reading the (true life) story I told.

Wow.

That is fine. I respect your opinion about me. I still think you are a good person.

Well hold on a second there... if this was self defense (also including defense of another person's life), than I absolutely do not think it was an immoral act. The way you described it to me didn't sound like it was though.

Just to clarify, this is what I believe self defense to be -

If someone is attacking you (or another), you have the right to exert as much force as is necessary to stop them. No more, and no less. If that amount of force results in the offenders death, if is justified and not immoral.

If this was the case, then I absolutely agree that her actions were moral.

But I believe the only time it is moral to take another person's life is in the case of self defense. This means I oppose any death sentences, in whatever form they may come.  

Wait... what's that you say? Morality is subjective?

Oh, so murder ISN'T always wrong. Glad we agree.

CL: Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions

(June 22, 2015 at 6:13 am)Starvald Demelain Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:34 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I believe the death penalty is immoral as well, so I would be a hypocrite if I said this was moral. Unless she acted to save her child's life (which doesn't sound like it) I do not think it was a moral act.

But I do think that the woman's culpability is very much lessened if not completely eliminated due to the shock she was in. I would never condemn her or say she is a bad person.

And as you can see, even in our judicial system... murder remains a crime, but a person's verdict is subjective. 

You do not have to agree with my versions of morality. Likewise, I do not agree with yours either. We can have different morals and moral standards, and that is fine. I still respect your views, and I still think you are a good person despite our differences.

A Catholic believes that losing your mind on a pedophile during the molestation of your own child is an immoral action? Forgive me if I don't gasp in surprise.

You have to remember that to me, the objective act is not the same as the person's culpability. They are 2 different things. I know you see them as one and the same, and that may be why you are having such a hard time fathoming why I think what I do.

While I believe that the objective act of killing a person outside of self defense is an inherently immoral action, I do believe that there are factors that play into a person's culpability. A person's culpability can be lessened, or completely eliminated.

In the case Becca has laid out to me, I would say this woman should be considered innocent by reason of insanity, and that her culpability of the act is eliminated given the circumstances and her mental state.

Does that make more sense?

---

(June 22, 2015 at 11:57 am)robvalue Wrote: CL: Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions

You are welcome!

Thank you for being kind. I appreciate that more than you know.

---

(June 22, 2015 at 6:58 am)Stimbo Wrote: Maybe Catholics have to say that. Could start a nasty precedent otherwise.

No, we can say/do what we'd like. We are not forced to act or think according to Church teaching. We always have a choice.

So....basically you're saying whether someone did something wrong or not depends on the circumstances. Which means whether something is wrong depends on the circumstances.


Where does the objective part come in?

(June 22, 2015 at 10:55 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 10:53 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because like I have explained, I believe they have been defined by God. I don't believe they just are whatever we say they are.

Defined by god = subjective

What now?
How do you know you're right?

Well like I told Robvalue. Even though you don't believe in God, you have to try to look at it through my lenses if you want to undertand my views. I believe God created morality. So morality is whatever He made them as.

---

(June 22, 2015 at 11:05 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:57 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 2. Hm? No. The state of mind is completely relevant to culpability, just as the sentence above says. Remember, culpability and moral responsibility are the same things. Just different ways of addressing it.

Then you do accept that morality is relative. You may not wish to admit it, but that is what your words above say.

No. A person's culpability is relative. The objective act itself is not. I know you see them as the same thing, but I see them as 2 different things, so you have to keep that in mind.

What did you think of my example with the insane person who killed 10 people at the mall? The act of killing 10 people is an objectively immoral act. But the insane person's culpability is probably completely eliminated. His culpability being lessened does not change the fact that going into a mall and killing 10 people is still immoral.

^Does that help better explain my views?

---

(June 22, 2015 at 11:18 am)Nope Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:34 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I believe the death penalty is immoral as well, so I would be a hypocrite if I said this was moral. Unless she acted to save her child's life (which doesn't sound like it) I do not think it was a moral act.

But I do think that the woman's culpability is very much lessened if not completely eliminated due to the shock she was in. I would never condemn her or say she is a bad person.

And as you can see, even in our judicial system... murder remains a crime, but a person's verdict is subjective. 

You do not have to agree with my versions of morality. Likewise, I do not agree with yours either. We can have different morals and moral standards, and that is fine. I still respect your views, and I still think you are a good person despite our differences.

Considering the damage that sexual abuse does to a young child, the mother might have saved her son's life further down the road. This sounds like self defense to me.

Hmmm... can you explain how? If this man was put in jail for the rest of his life at that point instead of killed, he would still not be able to offend again. Unless you mean the child would be able to recover better if the man was dead verses behind bars? Is this what you mean?

---

(June 22, 2015 at 11:51 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Oh, so murder ISN'T always wrong. Glad we agree.

Self defense is not murder. ;-)

(June 22, 2015 at 12:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 10:55 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Defined by god = subjective

What now?
How do you know you're right?

Well like I told Robvalue. Even though you don't believe in God, you have to try to look at it through my lenses if you want to undertand my views. I believe God created morality. So morality is whatever He made them as.

Defined by a person = subjective. God is a person. If it comes from god, it's subjective. It's what the word means.

How do you know you're right?

Quote:Hmmm... can you explain how? If this man was put in jail for the rest of his life at that point instead of killed, he would still not be able to offend again. Unless you mean the child would be able to recover better if the man was dead verses behind bars? Is this what you mean?

Suicide. Child abuse victims are prone to suicide.

(June 22, 2015 at 11:47 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 11:37 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: That is fine. I respect your opinion about me. I still think you are a good person.

Well hold on a second there... if this was self defense (also including defense of another person's life), than I absolutely do not think it was an immoral act. The way you described it to me didn't sound like it was though.

Just to clarify, this is what I believe self defense to be -

If someone is attacking you (or another), you have the right to exert as much force as is necessary to stop them. No more, and no less. If that amount of force results in the offenders death, if is justified and not immoral.

If this was the case, then I absolutely agree that her actions were moral.

But I believe the only time it is moral to take another person's life is in the case of self defense. This means I oppose any death sentences, in whatever form they may come.  

Wait... what's that you say?  Morality is subjective?

Becca, I have spent the last few pages explaining the difference between the morality of objective act and a person's moral culpability.

Check out my post 1505 for more clarification.

(June 22, 2015 at 12:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 11:51 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Oh, so murder ISN'T always wrong. Glad we agree.

Self defense is not murder. ;-)

Ok, killing people isn't always wrong. Yes?