(June 23, 2015 at 11:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote:  LOL, to the best of their abilities.., now following doctrine is subjective as well?

Catholicism is about guilt. It is in the interests of the priests to keep the hoops too high for the dogs to navigate.

(June 23, 2015 at 11:25 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 10:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What I said was the murder is inherently immoral. Murder is already defined as a wrongful killing.

My apologies.  Over a thread this long, the memory of an aging man slips.

So what you're saying is that sometimes killing a human being is not wrong?

Hey, no problem at all. And yes, that is correct.

Quote:

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

Yet, you've defined "self-defense" as defending a third party, even a third party unknown to the defending killer, meaning that your definition of moral killing, as opposed to murder, is rather elastic. Were  the German soldiers defending Berlin in 1945 behaving morally?  They knew the war was lost, they knew that Jews had been gassed by the millions, and they fought because they were afraid of what the Russians might do to their wives and daughters.  Yet their fighting prolonged the war, prolonged Hitler's life, and killed men themselves.

Were those killings moral?

You are correct, the morality of killing is dependent on several factors. That is why I don't think killing is inherently wrong. But the general rule is to always try to preserve life wherever you can and leave killing as a last resort, if that makes sense.

And that is a very good question. I don't want to give my opinion on that particular war simply because I am absolutely horrible with history and I don't want to form my opinion on something like this without knowing all the ins and outs. Sometimes in grey areas like that, you have to comb through the really fine details, of which I do not have.

Quote:

(June 23, 2015 at 10:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So the answer to your question depends on the circumstances.

And that, my dear, is the essence of moral relativity.

Some things depend on the circumstances, others are inherently immoral regardless of circumstances. This one in particular depends on the circumstances. But let me make it clear that I believe it still does have a definitive answer as to weather or not it is moral.

^All this per my beliefs, of course.

---

(June 23, 2015 at 11:54 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 11:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote:  LOL, to the best of their abilities.., now following doctrine is subjective as well?

Catholicism is about guilt.  It is in the interests of the priests to keep the hoops too high for the dogs to navigate.

By that I meant that no one is perfect, so no one is going to do everything the right way all the time. We just have to continue to try our best.

Having been an active Catholic my whole life, I can tell you that Catholicism is not about guilt.

So we can add that to the list of things you don't have an objective moral stance on, alongside childfucking.  Theft is wrong, objectively. Killing, meh, up to the individual.

-Of course- you get the crusaders.

(June 23, 2015 at 11:43 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 11:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So, the pope being for or against something...not -actually- an indicator of whether you're for or against something..as you implied in the response directly prior to my question.  Right?  LOL, to the best of their abilities.., now following doctrine is subjective as well.  "Well gee, you know, the pope said I had to wait to marry..but I just fucking -can't-".  Soon your very belief in christ will be relative, subjective, and depending upon circumstance.

I'll be there to applaud you.

It begs the question, too: what's the point of the pope?

The pope is only infalliable in matters of faith and morals. And he needs to specify that he is making an infallible pronouncement. It is a very big deal when this happens, and has only happened less than a dozen times in the past 2000 years. The last time was in the 1950's. The time before that was in the mid 1850's.

(June 23, 2015 at 10:09 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: PT, if the war is in the realm of defense, then I would call this a justifiable war.  This can include a nation defending themselves, or a nation defending another people that are being killed. Personally, I think very few wars fall into this category.

As for the death penalty, yes, I am against it.

So, soldiers defending their units in one of the unjust Bush oil wars are immoral then?!? Those are not examples of war we fought to defend ourselves.

(June 23, 2015 at 10:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 10:09 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: So, soldiers defending their units in one of the unjust Bush oil wars are immoral then?!? Those are not examples of war we fought to defend ourselves.

The soldiers defending themselves was not immoral. But I do think the decision to go to war was. I don't know all the ins and outs of it, but I remember the pope of the time being very much against it. So chances are I probably would too if I knew.

(edited. sorry, i'm watching a movie)

(June 23, 2015 at 10:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 10:46 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: You have previously claimed that killing in a just war is not immoral. Now you want to have your cake and eat it too?

I don't see how what I said above negates my earlier statement about just war.

(June 23, 2015 at 11:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 11:23 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: You really believe Bush invading Iraq for revenge is a just war?!?

No, I said it wasn't.

So, at this point I'm not even sure what to take from this. You seem to think that killing in a just war is moral, but immoral if the war is unjust. Ok. Then you make opposing statements about whether Bush's wars are just.

Killing is moral in a just war. Is Bush's oil war just and if not, are the soldiers defending their units from the "enemy" moral or immoral.

(June 24, 2015 at 12:36 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 11:43 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: It begs the question, too: what's the point of the pope?

The pope is only infalliable in matters of faith and morals. And he needs to specify that he is making an infallible pronouncement. It is a very big deal when this happens, and has only happened less than a dozen times in the past 2000 years. The last time was in the 1950's. The time before that was in the mid 1850's.

Ok... but that doesn't answer my question. What is the point of the pope?

(June 23, 2015 at 10:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 9:49 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Actually, wars aren't that clean-cut.  Firstly, every war has an offensive and a defensive side, and what's even funnier, those sides can change from offense to defense or vice-versa at any time in the war.

The German soldiers fighting and dying in 1940 were doing so in order to secure Germany's hold on Europe, with all that implies about that regime's evil policies. And the German soldiers fighting and dying in 1944 were doing so in order to defend (your standard for justifiable war) that same regime. In 1940, the Allies were defending. In 1944, the Allies were attacking. The idea that defense is the only acceptable reason to excuse the killing done by soldiers is clearly silly. All wars fall into this "category", as you put it, of being a defensive war; it is certainly defensie for one side.

Furthermore, the morality of their killing clearly relies upon the circumstances of the battle, the nations and practices they are fighting for, and the time, place, and circumstances of the shots fired.

Shooting an enemy soldier in a fortress and shooting an enemy soldier in your own PoW camp both have the same result: one enemy soldier dead.  Yet you and I both know that the morality of the two acts are entirely different. Shooting a Frenchman defending a parliamentary democracy was entirely different from shooting a German wishing to subjugate a continent. Shooting a German soldier was obviously different from shooting a German civilian.

The principle objection I have to the concept of moral objectivity is that it invariably ignores nuance, and invariably uses a broad brush, just as your pronouncement here that "all killing is evil unless in self-defense" has been shown to be hollow.


So, if you'd do me the favor of answering my question: if all killing is immoral, is the killing done by a soldier immoral?

I never said that all killing is immoral. Killing is not inherently immoral. What I said was the murder is inherently immoral. Murder is already defined as a wrongful killing.

So the answer to your question depends on the circumstances. Can you give me a scenario to go along with it? Was the man he killed trying to kill him and so he had to do it to save his own life?

(edited)

(June 24, 2015 at 12:36 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 11:43 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: It begs the question, too: what's the point of the pope?

The pope is only infalliable in matters of faith and morals. And he needs to specify that he is making an infallible pronouncement. It is a very big deal when this happens, and has only happened less than a dozen times in the past 2000 years. The last time was in the 1950's. The time before that was in the mid 1850's.

Hmmmmm. Randy said he's only infallible in matters of doctrine. Who to believe...

(June 24, 2015 at 12:38 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 10:09 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: So, soldiers defending their units in one of the unjust Bush oil wars are immoral then?!? Those are not examples of war we fought to defend ourselves.

(June 23, 2015 at 10:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The soldiers defending themselves was not immoral. But I do think the decision to go to war was. I don't know all the ins and outs of it, but I remember the pope of the time being very much against it. So chances are I probably would too if I knew.

(edited. sorry, i'm watching a movie)

(June 23, 2015 at 10:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see how what I said above negates my earlier statement about just war.

(June 23, 2015 at 11:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No, I said it wasn't.

So, at this point I'm not even sure what to take from this. You seem to think that killing in a just war is moral, but immoral if the war is unjust. Ok. Then you make opposing statements about whether Bush's wars are just.

Killing is moral in a just war. Is Bush's oil war just and if not, are the soldiers defending their units from the "enemy" moral or immoral.

Your questions was this:

"So, soldiers defending their units in one of the unjust Bush oil wars are immoral then?!?"

My answer was this:

"The soldiers defending themselves was not immoral. But I do think the decision to go to war was."

Killing in self defense is always justifiable, regardless of whether you're in a war or not, or whether it's a just war or not.

Sorry if it can get confusing on here. I hope that clears it up.

(June 24, 2015 at 12:41 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 12:36 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The pope is only infalliable in matters of faith and morals. And he needs to specify that he is making an infallible pronouncement. It is a very big deal when this happens, and has only happened less than a dozen times in the past 2000 years. The last time was in the 1950's. The time before that was in the mid 1850's.

Ok... but that doesn't answer my question.  What is the point of the pope?

Just the tip of his silly hat, I guess.

(June 24, 2015 at 12:42 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 10:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I never said that all killing is immoral. Killing is not inherently immoral. What I said was the murder is inherently immoral. Murder is already defined as a wrongful killing.

So the answer to your question depends on the circumstances. Can you give me a scenario to go along with it? Was the man he killed trying to kill him and so he had to do it to save his own life?

(edited)

(June 24, 2015 at 12:36 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The pope is only infalliable in matters of faith and morals. And he needs to specify that he is making an infallible pronouncement. It is a very big deal when this happens, and has only happened less than a dozen times in the past 2000 years. The last time was in the 1950's. The time before that was in the mid 1850's.

Hmmmmm. Randy said he's only infallible in matters of doctrine. Who to believe...

Both of us. Faith and morals are part of doctrine.