tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post6710650633806327927..comments2023-10-21T03:54:12.029-04:00Comments on A Gift Universe: Some things I believeSheilahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-45139952875635081542012-08-07T20:38:38.917-04:002012-08-07T20:38:38.917-04:00Petrus, I hope I haven't given you to understa...Petrus, I hope I haven't given you to understand that I am anything other than prolife. The #1 dealbreaker for me for any politician is if he supports abortion in any way. On the other hand, I have other dealbreakers too. A very pro-war candidate isn't likely to get a vote for me, either. I refuse to violate my conscience for any politician.<br /><br />As far as the ethics vs. morals / natural law vs. revealed law thing, perhaps my terminology is not right. I can see I should probably write a whole other post about the limits of government. Overall I believe any action that infringes another's rights may be forbidden by law, but any action that does not infringe on another's rights should not be. But that begs the question, what rights do we have?<br /> <br />S.g.o.t.s., I agree with you about sodomy. On the one hand, since it does not harm anyone but those committing it, I feel any "punishment" should be left up to God. On the other, there is no way to enforce a law like that without the issues you mention, and I am opposed to unenforceable laws remaining on the books (because they encourage contempt for law). <br /><br />With divorce, it's a huge problem for sure. But law can't fix that. We can't force people to remain together who don't want to be together, and of course there are cases where they SHOULD not be together (abuse, etc.). I think the solution here is just not a governmental one. To solve the problem of divorce, you're just going to have to spread the word about what marriage really is and should be, so that people know it BEFORE choosing a life partner. And I'm afraid you're going to have to convince people to stop having premarital sex and cohabiting while you're at it. Oh, and teach them to have the maturity and selflessness to put someone else's needs before their own. Heck, you may as well just get them to heaven while you're at it. You know? It's not an easy-fix solution like passing a law is, but these things stand a chance at making a real difference. In the Philippines (I learned from Enbrethiliel) divorce and remarriage are illegal but people do it all the time. Whereas traditional Catholics have it available in America, but they do it rarely because they don't believe in it.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-51599446704534597162012-08-06T19:59:50.681-04:002012-08-06T19:59:50.681-04:00Well, Peter, I'm content to accept that above ...Well, Peter, I'm content to accept that above Sheila was trying to use "ethics" interchangeably with "natural law", and "morality" with "Revealed Divine law"; the distinction is well worth while, and our disagreement thus-far is over choice of names, albeit names with prior-established uses.<br /><br />Without precisely disagreeing, I'm inclined, with you Peter, to worry about relying on the (perfectly valid) precept "do no harm", or the more-precise "<i>choose</i> no harm"; but where I see difficulty isn't the narrowness of the precept, but in the modern sense of <i>harm</i>; there seems to be a popular notion that whatever a person <i>freely chooses to suffer</i> is somehow <i>free from harm</i>. In this, as in other ways, there are plenty of acts I would recognize as necessarily a <i>choice of harm</i> which many today would not.<br /><br />For instance, there is the recurring example of sodomy: without unnecessary details, the act itself does <i>physical</i> harm to both involved, even neglecting risks of infection. However, at the same time I would oppose a law against the act itself, simply because any such law would necessarily obtrude upon the private homes of free persons, or rely on unjust presumptions, or rely on the uncorroborable testimony of one of the people involved: that is, to enact such a law would be <i>to choose harms</i>.<br /><br />Similarly, I have a slightly different view on divorce (admittedly academic: my family is beautifully happy and I'm a born single) because there ought to be some recourse for redress of evils committed under the shield of domesticity; at the same time, I'm simply appalled by the now commonplace abuse of what used to be exactly that recourse, to avoid boredom or to assuage willful distraction.some guy on the streethttp://epistle-null.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-40513222172353818512012-08-06T15:15:44.256-04:002012-08-06T15:15:44.256-04:00I'm with some guy questioning #6. Ethics can a...I'm with some guy questioning #6. Ethics can and should be based on morality. It sounds like you don't want to base law on revelation, but on reason, which is different than ethics, not morality. There's a Christian ethics (derived from Christian principles) as well as a common morality, or a morality shared by most persons. Morality forbids many of the same things that a healthy ethics forbids (and there are many types of ethics, some healthier (leading to the full development of human persons) than others). Do no harm is a very popular modern ethos, but can neglect weaker persons. It's uncontroverted divorce hurts people. Does the money really make up for that? What about adultery? Do you want to go back to legislating against adultery, since that leaves a spouse badly hurt? But it's also based on morality.<br />As to #12, it's great to embrace as many facets of the Church as possible. Most people find some that resonate most, and reflect those, and that's what makes the great symphony that is the Church. But it's also clear that some rights are more fundamental than others, and so some causes are also more important than others. We only have a limited amount of time to dedicate to causes, so do you choose to help the unborn by offering their mother's material and moral support or to protest animal euthenasia by burning down hunters' houses? When a politician accepts that some unborn babies are more worthy of life than others, I don't care how many other positions he supports, I can't support him. When the weakest and most innocent are expendable to a person, that person doesn't value others as persons, but based on some other valuation or ethics. and that's just not reasonable.cephashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04881712205613797594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-45403861070939338192012-08-06T14:31:26.846-04:002012-08-06T14:31:26.846-04:00Just wanted to comment that I definitely agree wit...Just wanted to comment that I definitely agree with a lot that you have written here. And number 12 describes me as well, and it can sometimes feel like a pretty lonely club! I always enjoy reading your posts about these sorts of issues.Amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08641509566095727946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-87194765050724322142012-08-05T22:04:31.661-04:002012-08-05T22:04:31.661-04:00I think we are disagreeing on definitions rather t...I think we are disagreeing on definitions rather than realities. For instance, anywhere there is a "victim," someone has infringed on another's rights. That is an ethical concern, but not a moral one. My division is basically that moral laws are based on revelation or a specific religious belief, whereas ethical laws are based on a purely rational rule of "don't harm others." So fraud, murder, theft, damage of property, etc., could all be banned by law, but divorce or skipping Mass on Sundays couldn't be. I don't believe it is right for the government to ban homosexuality, for instance, although I do believe it is wrong. Since it does not infringe on the rights of others, it isn't within the state's purview. However, the state can definitely ban rape or pedophilia since another person is harmed. And though divorce should not be banned, there should be provision made for making restitution to parties harmed by it ... for instance, alimony to a spouse who has not worked for a paycheck and is left in poverty due to the divorce.<br /><br />I'd love to hear your mostly-unrelated question!Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-42596856584662587882012-08-05T08:43:58.508-04:002012-08-05T08:43:58.508-04:00I think most of this is pretty sensible; where I r...I think most of this is pretty sensible; where I really feel some difficulty, it is that I don't understand what you mean.<br /><br />When you say you don't think the state should "legislate morality", what <i>is</i> the state doing when it "protects the rights of individuals"? That is, what are these rights if they are not somehow a reflection of true morality, and how does the state protect them without legislation?<br /><br />For instance, I would agree that the state ought never make a law commanding idolatry, just as the state ought never make a law forbidding blood transfusions (say); and furthermore I believe that if a state put such a thing on its books, then it'd be perfectly good to ignore such a developement. On the other hand, legislation to order well the redress of some particular moral harm, I think, can be done sensibly --- e.g., it's better to arrest and try and imprison fraudsters rather than let victims seek vengeance on their own.<br /><br />So, maybe we can disagree on my second paragraph, or maybe your meaning is something quite different.<br /><br />(I do have a mostly-unrelated question tangential to another point, but it can wait.)some guy on the streethttp://epistle-null.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com