(June 22, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'll admit, after I responded, it did cross my mind that perhaps you were referring to the Virgin Mary. But it was consensual. As the story goes the angel appeared to her and asked her if she accepted this. So I was confused...

Nope. He tells her. He informs her.

And even if that wasn't the case, Mary was barely a teenager. She could not give informed consent.

(June 22, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 1:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Thanks for addressing the question, even if the punchline was a bit premature. The fact that you felt the need to add a qualifier tells me that, as with the murder thing, you do recognise that there are actions which are context-driven - hence, relative.

You are correct. There are actions that are context driven. The knife thing is one of them. That is definitely relative.

Murder and rape on the other hand, I do not believe are context driven. I believe that as acts in and of themselves, are inherently immoral.

---

Quote:I apologize CL because I did not see this question but I wasn't ignoring you.

1. How do you know the father would have been in jail for the rest of his life? There is no guarantee that her husband would be found guilty even if child molestation carried a life sentence.

2. She saw that her child was in danger so at that moment, she defended him. I have no idea if the child would have been better or not if the man was in jail.

Oh no problem. I miss questions all the time! There are 2 different things at play here.

1. Objectively speaking, I still don't think it's moral to murder someone on the grounds that they may not get convicted. I do not believe that this is a justifiable act. Either legally or morally.

2. I understand that. Which is part of the reason why I don't think she carries any culpability. She blacked out and was acting on pure motherly instinct. This does not make her a bad person.
Separate from that though, (as far as I understood the story that was told to me) the fact still remains that this was not a life threatening situation and that it was not a case of killing someone in order to save a life. If this was the case, Becca can correct me, and of course, it changes things.

No one's life was in immediate danger.

---

Quote:

(June 22, 2015 at 1:40 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Oh, come on!  Yes, I think your morals leave a little bit to be desired, but you're not thick.  I think you know where I'm going with this.

I'll admit, after I responded, it did cross my mind that perhaps you were referring to the Virgin Mary. But it was consensual. As the story goes the angel appeared to her and asked her if she accepted this. So I was confused...

She wasn't asked for consent; she was told what was going to happen. What would have happened if she had said "no"?

Quote:30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

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

Except that you explicitly equated culpability and moral responsibility. That means that moral responsibility, that is to say the morality, of an act is not objective.

You've demonstrated this belief of yours time and again in this thread, when you draw on circumstances when judging the morality of an act. You called the situation with the mother "immoral" until some objections brought you away from your talking points and to your senses. I agree with Stimbo, that you are an essentially decent person seriously trying to square her own moral compass with what she has been told by people she respects and adores.

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

How can you have an immoral act without an actor? Morality is not some abstract crap that we view as a shadow on a cavern's wall. Morality is a condition of every human action. You yourself acknowledge that such lofty, abstract phrases such as "All murder is wrong" is entirely dependent upon circumstances. That is a tacit admission that the real world circumstances of an act are more important than abstractions.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If you say you have "good reason" and then can't actually describe that without invalid argumentation....it's not reason at all, let alone good reason....Cath.  You have -thoughts- which lead you to believe...lets not stretch and call that anything other than what it is, hmn?

I respect your opinion.

You have a problem determining the difference between fact and opinion, it's deep-seated and runs along the predictable fault line of your faith. You -believe- that you have reason....and when someone points out to you that you do not..because words actually -mean- something, all contravening statements are opinion. This -is not- respect, either......ofc....but I've stopped expecting you to know the difference anymore for the very same -reasons-.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:31 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

---

Quote:I'll admit, after I responded, it did cross my mind that perhaps you were referring to the Virgin Mary. But it was consensual. As the story goes the angel appeared to her and asked her if she accepted this. So I was confused...

She wasn't asked for consent; she was told what was going to happen.  What would have happened if she had said "no"?

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

You have to keep in mind though, that God already knew she would consent to this. And of course, even though she was told and not asked, she still gave consent.

I think if she had said no, then she would not have been the right person for the "job" in the first place and would never have been asked.

---

(June 22, 2015 at 2:33 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

Quote:30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

...“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

She could not fully consent. She was from 12 to 14 years old.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:30 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'll admit, after I responded, it did cross my mind that perhaps you were referring to the Virgin Mary. But it was consensual. As the story goes the angel appeared to her and asked her if she accepted this. So I was confused...

Nope. He tells her. He informs her.

And even if that wasn't the case, Mary was barely a teenager. She could not give informed consent.

While we do not know her exact age, she was old enough to give consent to being engaged. And she was engaged to Joseph at that time.

Quote:...“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

-said the rapists biographer.