Moral Theology and the 2008 Election

[benedictaoo]

What I mean by 'in part', is that I don't know if does any good exactly to compare the two candidates directly when seeking our proportionate reason. Rather saying "Candidate A supports intrinsic evil Y, though I disagree with Y--what in his platfrom offsets in a proportionate way the harm done through his support for X."

But X is what caused Y... thus the guy who supports X is acceptable by virtue of that, IMO.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Let's move that to another thread--and we can talk about it there?? (The war thing that is...

and I told you I am tired--that sentence you quoted ought to have ended in Y...not X so it should have read

What I mean by 'in part', is that I don't know if does any good exactly to compare the two candidates directly when seeking our proportionate reason. Rather saying "Candidate A supports intrinsic evil Y, though I disagree with Y--what in his platfrom offsets in a proportionate way the harm done through his support for Y."

 

[benedictaoo]

Sure but it has to be done in a Catholic context or it will get moved.

 

[Rebekka]

One of the things is that a workable proportionate reason gets into very sketchy areas if both candidates support intrinsic evils. At that point if someone opts to vote for either one then they are coming down to the formation of conscience. And although arguments can be made on both ends...if two candidates support intrinsic evils it is very dicey to start weighing them like they can be counterbalanced.

Over here that is the case, as there is not one party that is fully pro-life. We have to choose between evils.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I gotta come in here with another angle on this:

I would have a completely differnet stand on abortion if I beleived, as some apparently do, that women are being forced or in some way systematically persuaded or convienced to have abortions.

This just isn't the case.

Women seek out abortions because they want them. The people performing abortion are providing a service that is wanted and popular.

This to me make the whole proportional reason argument a non sequiour to me.

The law is not the issue, the desire by the women to have an abortion is.

This point, which seem obvious to me, is lost on people who are smarter, better and just plain nicer than me. But changing the law doesn't remove the need or the desire for the service and women will contiune to get them.

History shows this.

You guys can argue proportionality all you want I just don't think it applies to this situation.

 

[geocajun]

I gotta come in here with another angle on this:

I would have a completely differnet stand on abortion if I beleived, as some apparently do, that women are being forced or in some way systematically persuaded or convienced to have abortions.

This just isn't the case.

Women seek out abortions because they want them. The people performing abortion are providing a service that is wanted and popular.

This to me make the whole proportional reason argument a non sequiour to me.

The law is not the issue, the desire by the women to have an abortion is.

This point, which seem obvious to me, is lost on people who are smarter, better and just plain nicer than me. But changing the law doesn't remove the need or the desire for the service and women will contiune to get them.

History shows this.

You guys can argue proportionality all you want I just don't think it applies to this situation.

Well there is that.

I agree that those people who think abortion is a legal problem really don't understand the issue.

 

[MikeK]

This is a great thread, David.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Can I start with a question on proportianate reason?

Why don't our bishops consider endorsing McCain to be a proportionate reason to losing their non-for-profit status? It would seem to be that if voting for McCain meant ending abortion, our Bishops would have no choice first of all, and second of all wouldn't be concerned with the loss of tax money - is tax exemption proportionate to the evil of abortion? Does voting for McCain not mean ending abortion?

You can always pray to the Holy Spirit for an answer as to why the Church is guided so.

Didn't Jesus state His Church would not be prevailed upon ?

Or are we stating that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church (making Jesus a liar) ?

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Cos- many people would like to rob other people- does that mean that there shouldn't be a law against it? Does that mean that there oughtn't also be a commitment to improving people's circumstances so that robbery is no longer seen as the best option among many?

Freedom has as a neccesity limits upon infringing upon another's freedoms.

 

[BAFRIEND]

I would have a completely differnet stand on abortion if I beleived, as some apparently do, that women are being forced or in some way systematically persuaded or convienced to have abortions.
...
This point, which seem obvious to me, is lost on people who are smarter, better and just plain nicer than me. But changing the law doesn't remove the need or the desire for the service and women will contiune to get them.

I want to go 50 miles over the speed limit. The laws in place preventing me from doing that does not remove the need or the desire for me to continue to want to do that.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Cos- many people would like to rob other people- does that mean that there shouldn't be a law against it? Does that mean that there oughtn't also be a commitment to improving people's circumstances so that robbery is no longer seen as the best option among many?

Freedom has as a neccesity limits upon infringing upon another's freedoms.

Well, look.

You can't convoulute all this together to make a point that isn't really relavent.

You put two points together that are commonly put together to make the point but never put together to solve the problem.

convolution #1:

Murder, robbery, (whatever) is illegal even though people do it why should abortion be legal too.

This issue here is the prevalence of aboriton in the society and its historical prevalence throughout all societies.

Its just been really common throughout time.

To me the better example is alcohol. People drink. People like to drink. Its part of the social fabric of many societies. And it causes problems

So it should be illegal, like robbery or murder.

But it didn't work, because it couldn't because you can't change people using laws. People will seek booze for social factors that have nothing to do with, or, more to the point, transend legal restriction. (To be clear this has nothing to do with addiction, its has to do with having wine with dinner, cocktails with friends, drinks with customers, etc, social stuff the isn't going to change just because the law does)

I see abortion the same way. Its part of the social fabric and always has been.

Therefore if you want to change the social fabric you need to change the people, which in this case means the women who seek abortions. We need to interdict the reasons why women get abortions which brings use to

convoltion #2:

The "why can't we do both" argument. Make it illegal and work to change the soical fabric.

Ok.


Show me a plan that does both and I'll seriously consider it.


I've never actaully seen a plan put forth by any pro-lifer or pro-life group that actually attempted to interdict or change the social fabric in any meaningful way .

This is why, in moment of petulence, I have said that pro-lifers are ok with saving any baby as long as it doesn't cost them anything. The moment you have to back training, childcare, healthcare, direct payments to women for support, whatever, you run smack dab into a brick wall of resistance.

Which brings us to why I think the point is irrelevent:

So to me, claiming we should do both is just a smoke screen which is to be ignored until we get serious about a plan of action for it. Until then its just a talking point in support of convolution #1 an #2.


With me ?

 

[geocajun]

Charlie, what do you think of the 95/10 plan?

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I want to go 50 miles over the speed limit. The laws in place preventing me from doing that does not remove the need or the desire for me to continue to want to do that.

Lets turn this (rather snarky) arguement inside out:

Studies show that if you lower the speed limit to 40 mph nationwide it would virutally end highway deaths, saving some 60,000 lives a year.

Yet no one seriously suggests we lower the speed limit to 40 to save born people.

Why ?

I don't know for sure but I beleive it has something to do with the fact that we could even get people to drive 55 to help get the country off foreign oil.

Everybody broke the 55 speed limit.

Most felt it was their birthright to go faster. Or felt that the law make no sense for them (They lived in a big, sparely populated state, have a safer car, whatever)

This to me, is the arguemet against attempting to make abortion illegal. People are just not going to think it should apply to THEM.

Its an effort doomed to failure and I hate wasted effort and resources.


Its the businessman in me.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Well, Cos...the reason the psycho bunch all hate me on here, is that I think problems ought to be approached and solved wholistically rather than just piecemeal. I tend to see things in connection together, and see no point in attacking only one aspect of a symptom of a problem--it's why for me things like how babies are born in this country, and our commitment as a nation to breastfeeding are intimately connected with abortion. It's why abuse and less violent harmful childrearing practices (corporeal punishment, isolisation of babies from very early ages for long stretches, too short of time of mother child bonding) all figure in for me about tackling abortion.

Abortion is the direct killing of another human being. That ought to be illegal, it ought to have stayed illegal. There's been murder since Cain and Abel, but that doesn't mean that it is a societal good to lealise murder. I understand that where we are now-having legalised abortion- makes undoing it very complicated...especially if we are working on it not just as a means to finally wash ou hands of the culpability we bear--but as a means of truly supporting women and children.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Charlie, what do you think of the 95/10 plan?

Only "lets do both" plan ever seriously put forth.

And it was put forth, by of all people, the Democrats.

No traditional pro-life group I know of backs it.





go figure.

 

[Davidnic]

One thing I want to address later when I get my thoughts together is that double effect is a reasoning allowed by the Church (so to speak). And it has the mention of proportionate reason. But that proportionate reason mode of thought is different from the type advocated by proportionalism or conditionalism. Both of those are condemned by the Church because of how they treat intrinsic evils.

So what I would like to do is look at the various reasons for voting for anyone. Obama, McCain or third choice and look at matters like double effect proportionate reasons as opposed to conditionalist, interned versus foreseen consequence and those considerations.

I think much of the Bishops worry is that people will take the mention of proportionate reasons...and apply a conditionalist mode of though rather than the double effect mode.

I am going to try to present both sides fairly. What I mean by that is I will try to lay out all the different reasonings for voting one way or another and apply traditional and accepted Catholic moral theology to them. If at any time I misrepresent or misunderstand a position or rational for voting a certain way...please correct me. I am hoping that together we can really examine all the different aspects of this.

In may cases it will come down to a call of conscience. And at that point it is good to discuss those merits too.

Hopefully this can get to the heart of much of the political differences and viewpoints and focus on them in a really in depth manner in the light of Catholic Teaching.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Well, Cos...the reason the psycho bunch all hate me on here, is that I think problems ought to be approached and solved wholistically rather than just piecemeal. I tend to see things in connection together, and see no point in attacking only one aspect of a symptom of a problem--it's why for me things like how babies are born in this country, and our commitment as a nation to breastfeeding are intimately connected with abortion. It's why abuse and less violent harmful childrearing practices (corporeal punishment, isolisation of babies from very early ages for long stretches, too short of time of mother child bonding) all figure in for me about tackling abortion.

Abortion is the direct killing of another human being. That ought to be illegal, it ought to have stayed illegal. There's been murder since Cain and Abel, but that doesn't mean that it is a societal good to lealise murder. I understand that where we are now-having legalised abortion- makes undoing it very complicated...especially if we are working on it not just as a means to finally wash ou hands of the culpability we bear--but as a means of truly supporting women and children.

See, now you've got everything unconvoluted it lays out easier and is harder a stand to assail.

It also lays bare just how hard a nut this is to crack.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Well, Cos...the reason the psycho bunch all hate me on here, is that I think problems ought to be approached and solved wholistically rather than just piecemeal. I tend to see things in connection together, and see no point in attacking only one aspect of a symptom of a problem--it's why for me things like how babies are born in this country, and our commitment as a nation to breastfeeding are intimately connected with abortion. It's why abuse and less violent harmful childrearing practices (corporeal punishment, isolisation of babies from very early ages for long stretches, too short of time of mother child bonding) all figure in for me about tackling abortion.

Abortion is the direct killing of another human being. That ought to be illegal, it ought to have stayed illegal. There's been murder since Cain and Abel, but that doesn't mean that it is a societal good to lealise murder. I understand that where we are now-having legalised abortion- makes undoing it very complicated...especially if we are working on it not just as a means to finally wash ou hands of the culpability we bear--but as a means of truly supporting women and children.

I don't think that any of the psychos here believe that social problems should be ignored. But neither should the most basic right of the unborn be ignored either.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

One thing I want to address later when I get my thoughts together is that double effect is a reasoning allowed by the Church (so to speak). And it has the mention of proportionate reason. But that proportionate reason mode of thought is different from the type advocated by proportionalism or conditionalism. Both of those are condemned by the Church because of how they treat intrinsic evils.

So what I would like to do is look at the various reasons for voting for anyone. Obama, McCain or third choice and look at matters like double effect proportionate reasons as opposed to conditionalist, interned versus foreseen consequence and those considerations.

I think much of the Bishops worry is that people will take the mention of proportionate reasons...and apply a conditionalist mode of though rather than the double effect mode.

I am going to try to present both sides fairly. What I mean by that is I will try to lay out all the different reasonings for voting one way or another and apply traditional and accepted Catholic moral theology to them. If at any time I misrepresent or misunderstand a position or rational for voting a certain way...please correct me. I am hoping that together we can really examine all the different aspects of this.

In may cases it will come down to a call of conscience. And at that point it is good to discuss those merits too.

Hopefully this can get to the heart of much of the political differences and viewpoints and focus on them in a really in depth manner in the light of Catholic Teaching.

Double effect and Proportional reasoning are, to me, like quantum machanics and string threory.

No one really understand's either and everyone thinks the can explain it someone else. And most people who think they get either one also thing the sub-collider is going to build a black hole that will destory the planet.

In other word is all B as in B and S as in S.


But I'll give it a whirl just for you Davy.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

I don't think that any of the psychos here believe that social problems should be ignored. But neither should the most basic right of the unborn be ignored either.

LOL! guilty conscience much??