(June 23, 2015 at 1:26 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 9:42 pm)Catholic_L ady Wrote: I believe killing is only moral in self defense. I'm sorry if you find this sad.

Would you kill to defend your infant child?  That is not self-defense. Is it moral, by your lights?

Don't ask me if I would do it or not, because I can't possibly know. Ask me whether I consider the act inherently immoral. :-)

Can you give me a scenario?

---

(June 23, 2015 at 1:30 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:23 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't think it's conducive to a good discussion to tell other people what they really believe. Just MHO.

Oh, believe me; I get that, but I'm just going off your own posts in this thread that's about whether morality is objective or not, and with every single post you've made, it's quite clear you either don't understand what objective means, or you don't actually believe in it.

What do you mean? Can you give me an example that would show that I don't understand or don't know? Another possibility is that you don't understand the concept I am trying to explain. ;-)

(June 22, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

---

(June 22, 2015 at 12:44 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Because you say so?  Because the Catholic church says so?  You can't think of any situation in which it is morally right to steal?

---

Quote:It is acceptable for a starving person to steal food, but not more than is necessary.

From the Catechism:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.191

The 7th Commandment says that all Jewish men have to show up before the Lord God of Israel three times a year and while they are there other guys are to keep their mitts off of their land.  Exodus 34:23-24.  

None of the Ten Commandments prohibit stealing food.  There were some laws against stealing but it was OK to steal foreigners' lands.

(June 22, 2015 at 4:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 4:31 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: and that somehow makes a 30yo man marrying a 12yo ok?

I do not think there is a particular line drawn in stone on what kind of age differences a married couple can morally have. It is not always-and-everywhere-no-matter-what, ok. It can depend on culture, emotional/physical maturity of the girl, how respectfully the man handles it, etc.

Obviously in 21st century America this would be immoral, both because of the culture and because it is against the law. But I can see how in a totally different culture it can be different.

I do agree with all of you that this in particular is subjective.

Another thing I think is subjective is the standards of modesty. I think it'd be immoral if I walked around my neighborhood block topless wearing fig leaves over the bottom, but I do not think it is moral that the indigenous people do this in their "neighborhoods".

Age difference?! This isn't about the fucking age difference! She was twelve! That's fucking child rape!

(June 23, 2015 at 1:37 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:30 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Oh, believe me; I get that, but I'm just going off your own posts in this thread that's about whether morality is objective or not, and with every single post you've made, it's quite clear you either don't understand what objective means, or you don't actually believe in it.

What do you mean? Can you give me an example that would show that I don't understand or don't know? Another possibility is that you don't understand the concept I am trying to explain. ;-)

You've explained your position a hundred times, and it's been explained to you a hundred times why what you're talking about isn't actually objective at all.  Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.  Bottom line: the concept you've "explained" so far is not objective morality; not even close.

For example:

"Theft is an objective immorality."

"Oh?  You can't think of any time theft can be moral?"

"Oh, well, it's ok if someone is hungry, as long as they don't take too much."

"But you said it was objective..."

"Well, it's still immoral, but that's ok because those people aren't culpable."

So, if people aren't culpable for some of their immoral acts, what's the point of having "objective" morals at all?  In other words, not only do they not exist, they can't exist.

(June 23, 2015 at 1:54 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 4:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I do not think there is a particular line drawn in stone on what kind of age differences a married couple can morally have. It is not always-and-everywhere-no-matter-what, ok. It can depend on culture, emotional/physical maturity of the girl, how respectfully the man handles it, etc.

Obviously in 21st century America this would be immoral, both because of the culture and because it is against the law. But I can see how in a totally different culture it can be different.

I do agree with all of you that this in particular is subjective.

Another thing I think is subjective is the standards of modesty. I think it'd be immoral if I walked around my neighborhood block topless wearing fig leaves over the bottom, but I do not think it is immoral that the indigenous people do this in their "neighborhoods".

Age difference?! This isn't about the fucking age difference!

When I spoke of age difference above, I meant the fact that the girl would be very young (12-14ish) and the man would be a full grown man. That's the context we were talking in, so that is what I meant, though I should have clarified.

Are you saying you think this sort of marriage arrangement is inherently immoral, Neim? I'm confused. I thought you guys were the moral relativists here. Are you going to take a stand on this one?

(June 23, 2015 at 1:04 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: "There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods."

Subjective morality!

(June 23, 2015 at 2:11 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:54 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Age difference?! This isn't about the fucking age difference!

When I spoke of age difference above, I meant the fact that the girl would be very young (12-14ish) and the man would be a full grown man. That's the context we were talking in, so that is what I meant, though I should have clarified.

Are you saying you think this sort of marriage arrangement is inherently immoral, Neim? I'm confused. I thought you guys were the moral relativists here. Are you going to take a stand on this one?

from my perspective I see it as immoral. the people who arranged those marriages thought it was perfectly fine. Subjective, see? Nothing on its own has moral value. It needs context.

What I find appalling is that you think it's ok. That's sick.

(June 23, 2015 at 2:11 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:37 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What do you mean? Can you give me an example that would show that I don't understand or don't know? Another possibility is that you don't understand the concept I am trying to explain. ;-)

You've explained your position a hundred times, and it's been explained to you a hundred times why what you're talking about isn't actually objective at all.  Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.  Bottom line: the concept you've "explained" so far is not objective morality; not even close.

For example:

"Theft is an objective immorality."

"Oh?  You can't think of any time theft can be moral?"

"Oh, well, it's ok if someone is hungry, as long as they don't take too much."

"But you said it was objective..."

"Well, it's still immoral, but that's ok because those people aren't culpable."

So, if people aren't culpable for some of their immoral acts, what's the point of having "objective" morals at all?  In other words, not only do they not exist, they can't exist.

Well first off, I am sorry, but this is not an accurate representation of what I said.  

What I said is, theft is an inherently immoral act. (Not subjective.)

What is subjective is the thief's culpability. (refer to my example of the insane man to see where I distinguish between an objective act and personal culpability)

Now, my mistake with the whole theft thing was when I failed to realize that the definition of theft laid out in the catechism is this:

"The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.

So, taking another person's resources in the face of urgent necessity (food, shelter, clothing) is not considered theft per the catechism. I should have made this distinction with my response to you when "theft" was on my list of inherently immoral acts.

---

(June 23, 2015 at 2:13 am)IATIA Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:04 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: "There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods."

Subjective morality!

Read carefully. :-)

What they are saying is that this is not considered theft. Theft is still inherently immoral.

(June 23, 2015 at 2:31 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

---

(June 23, 2015 at 2:11 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: You've explained your position a hundred times, and it's been explained to you a hundred times why what you're talking about isn't actually objective at all.  Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.  Bottom line: the concept you've "explained" so far is not objective morality; not even close.

For example:

"Theft is an objective immorality."

"Oh?  You can't think of any time theft can be moral?"

"Oh, well, it's ok if someone is hungry, as long as they don't take too much."

"But you said it was objective..."

"Well, it's still immoral, but that's ok because those people aren't culpable."

So, if people aren't culpable for some of their immoral acts, what's the point of having "objective" morals at all?  In other words, not only do they not exist, they can't exist.

Well first off, I am sorry, but this is not an accurate representation of what I said.  

What I said is, theft is an inherently immoral act. (Not subjective.)

What is subjective is the thief's culpability. (refer to my example of the insane man to see where I distinguish between an objective act and personal culpability)

Now, my mistake with the whole theft thing was when I failed to realize that the definition of theft laid out in the catechism is this:

"The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.

So, taking another person's resources in the face of urgent necessity (food, shelter, clothing) is not considered theft per the catechism. I should have made this distinction with my response to you when "theft" was on my list of inherently immoral acts.

---

I'm a hoop dancer and I make my own hoops.  You can buy one for $50 if you'd like a prettier one to jump through.

(June 23, 2015 at 2:23 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 2:11 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: When I spoke of age difference above, I meant the fact that the girl would be very young (12-14ish) and the man would be a full grown man. That's the context we were talking in, so that is what I meant, though I should have clarified.

Are you saying you think this sort of marriage arrangement is inherently immoral, Neim? I'm confused. I thought you guys were the moral relativists here. Are you going to take a stand on this one?

from my perspective I see it as immoral. the people who arranged those marriages thought it was perfectly fine. Subjective, see? Nothing on its own has moral value. It needs context.

Please read carefully.

I specifically said I do not think it is just A-OK any time. I simply said I don't think this specific act is inherently immoral. Meaning I don't think Joseph and Mary, for example, were doing anything immoral by getting engaged because that was their custom at the time. And since this is not an inherently immoral act, it is not always immoral everywhere and in every situation, like acts that actually are inherently immoral. Now, do I think it would be severely inappropriate in the here and now? Absolutely. I think it would take a pretty immoral man to do that. For you to pass it on as I think it's all good and dandy is a misrepresentation of my views and comes off as kind of dishonest.

Quote:What I find appalling is that you think it's ok. That's sick.

Neim, you and I have exchanged messages and spoken to each other on a personal level. Come on. Don't refer to my views here as "appalling" and "sick". Plenty of people here have said plenty of things I vehemently disagree with, but I have more respect for all of you than to say "that's sick" and "your thinking is sick and appalling" I have respected their decision to think what they think regardless of my feelings towards it, and that's that. I don't expect the same treatment in return from most people, but from you.... I would have.