Rick Santorum Takes Mo, Mn, And Co!

[Socrates]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1329330989' post='2387564']
How and why?[/quote]
Because in the Brave New World of the New Morality, the personal comfort of a few murderous terrorists is worth much more than the lives of millions of innocent babies.

Didn't you get the memo?

Forget using Right Reason in a Phatmass debate, as it's the relic of the pre-Vatican II Dark Ages of the Church with St. Thomas Aquinas and the Spanish Inquisition, and must be tossed out the window. It's all about Political Correctness now.



[/color]

[quote]The Church seems pretty serious in the matter. They were right about the effects of the pill on society...I suspect the same on gay marriage/civil unions.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]http://www.vatican.v...-unions_en.html[/url]


To clarify because some have already misinterpreted me, I do believe torture is "good." I follow the Church. And as a voting Catholic, I am allowed to vote for imperfect people as long as I vote for the one doing the least damage. Gay marriage and abortion do much more damage to this country than a few dozen people being tortured.[/quote]
Just so you'll be aware, you're arguing with a guy who doesn't give two poos about Catholic moral teaching on sexual matters, yet feels compelled to pontificate to us all what opinions are and aren't "Catholic." So it's probably pearls before the swine, brother.


And I believe you mean to say,
[quote] I do [b]not[/b] believe torture is "good."[/quote]

[Winchester]

If it is morally acceptable to kill someone in self defense, I think there's an argument that it can be morally acceptable to inflict torture.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1329349193' post='2387706']
If it is morally acceptable to kill someone in self defense, I think there's an argument that it can be morally acceptable to inflict torture.
[/quote]I assume you're joking here.

There's no [i]reasonable [/i]way to argue from one to the other.

Edited February 16, 2012 by qfnol31

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1329353863' post='2387756']
I assume you're joking here.

There's no [i]reasonable [/i]way to argue from one to the other.
[/quote]
It's morally acceptable cause someone physical harm, in some cases. Torture would have to be inherently evil for the principle of double effect to not apply. What is special about torture itself that would exempt it? That's a serious question, and using italics isn't an acceptable refutation.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1329348706' post='2387698']
Because in the Brave New World of the New Morality, the personal comfort of a few murderous terrorists is worth much more than the lives of millions of innocent babies.[/quote]

Apparently.


[quote]Just so you'll be aware, you're arguing with a guy who doesn't give two poos about Catholic moral teaching on sexual matters, yet feels compelled to pontificate to us all what opinions are and aren't "Catholic." So it's probably pearls before the swine, brother.


And I believe you mean to say,
[/quote]

Yes.......wow......whoops. Bad enough I'm getting misquoted.....hopefully I'll get misquoted on the mistake and then my real opinion will show up.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1329348706' post='2387698']

Just so you'll be aware, you're arguing with a guy who doesn't give two poos about Catholic moral teaching on sexual matters, yet feels compelled to pontificate to us all what opinions are and aren't "Catholic." So it's probably pearls before the swine, brother.

[/quote]

Hah, you assume too much Socrates, and wrongly. I do give a lot of 'poos' about catholic moral teaching, and its not my fault that i listen to what you guys and the Church say that the Catholic Church represents, and paid attention. Ain't my fault that i care when someone is wrong either.

[KnightofChrist]

Chim chimney, Chim chimney, Chim chim cher-roo! ‪I does what I likes and I likes what I do‬

/thus ends todays random out of left field comment.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1329362390' post='2387823']
I do give a lot of 'poos' about catholic moral teaching
[/quote]

C-o-o-l and a-w-e-s-o-m-e

Edited February 16, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

Torture uses a person as a means to an end, when all persons are to be seen as ends in themselves. The death penalty can sometimes be morally licit because there is a principle of justice for the person involved--by their actions, they have deserved this. But while death or imprisonment are morally licit as punishments, torture is never morally licit as a punishment. By one's actions one can forfeit their right to their life, one can forfeit some aspect of their right to their freedom, but one can never forfeit their right to be treated with dignity as a human being made in the image and likeness of Almighty God. When you imprison someone, you must still treat them with inherent human dignity. Even when you execute them, you must treat them with inherent human dignity (not cause undue suffering, give them a chance at repentence before they are executed, pray for their souls that they might meet the mercy of God).

This is Catholic moral teaching. It may be foreign to some of our minds here, but it is absolutely the truth. That doesn't make torture worse than abortion, but I would argue that torture is absolutely worse than allowing gay marriage... because allowing people to choose to sexually sin, even having the state recognize and grant benefits on the basis of sexual sin, is nowhere NEAR as bad as using violence and force to unjustly deprive them of their human dignity.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1329357004' post='2387785']
It's morally acceptable cause someone physical harm, in some cases. Torture would have to be inherently evil for the principle of double effect to not apply. What is special about torture itself that would exempt it? That's a serious question, and using italics isn't an acceptable refutation.
[/quote]When is it acceptable to cause a person harm intentionally? Al has some good points above and I'll try to incorporate them into my post here. There are a few different responses that I will make in this post, so please bear with me; hopefully I won't make it too complex.

My first argument is basically that it is a leap to jump from your point on self-defense to torture. They are different acts in themselves and I'll explain how and why. Second, I shall take up Al's claim about the death penalty, a point on which I am certain we agree. Third I'll argue, mostly along the same lines why torture is an intrinsically evil act. He has some really good points and I don't want to take away from them, but I figure I should respond since your reply was originally directed at me.

In the case of self-defense, we must look at what is really happening in the action. This may sound like semantics and I may put a bit of emphasis on intention, but do not misunderstand: intention is not the only important part of the act (as I'll explain below). If a person acts in self-defense and kills another person we can look at the situation and see if this action was a valid response or not. The basic principle in repelling an agressor is to do as little harm as possible. Did the person acting in self-defense have a different option than to kill the agressor? That is, could he have done something else to keep the agressor at bay? If he had another option, what he did was not a valid response. Was the killing proportional to the action? This is a bit more of a gray area because of accidents, but was the agressor merely stealing a wallet? If the killing is not in proportion to the original agressor's act, then it is an illicit response. Did the defendant intend to kill the agressor? If his intent was to kill and not to repel the agressor, then the killing is illicit. Does the defendant take joy in the killing? If so, he is at fault for his action. All of this goes to show that the intent of killing in self-defense is not to kill; in fact, if at all possible we must avoid killing the person. The intent here is merely to stave off the original agressor. If the original agressor happens to be killed, then the act of killing is secondary to the act of defense. This is a long way of saying that this particular instance invokes the principle of double effect. This might sound silly, but Wikipedia has a good introduction to the principle of double effect. In this case, if you look it up, the act of repelling an agressor is itself a good act. The rest of what's described there is explained above. This is the reason for my response above that killing in self-defense cannot be likened to torture. It is never licit for an individual to kill a person solely to kill that person, even if there might be a just cause.

Now for the case of the death penalty. I'm not going to get into the question of the death penalty in society today, as this phorum has had many, many threads devoted to the topic. I merely want to explain how the death penalty is justified as a valid response at different times. Let me begin by using Thomas Aquinas, though I must explain now that evil is not used here with all the modern connotations associated with the term. Thomas talks about three types of evil: the first, most commonly known, is evil actions, i.e. those actions associated with sinning; the second is evil most commonly associated with deformities, or a type of privation; third, and most relevant for now, is the evil of punishment. I mention this characterization of punishment as evil because it implies an action done to a person against his will and it is a privation of a good done to him in response to a particular action. Therefore any punishment deprives a person of some particular good in response to his action. This is done involuntarily. Now why bring all of this up? Because if we want to compare an evil action with punishment, we must first understand what punishment is and why it is of a completely different sort of evil than torture is. Punishment is evil insofar as it a person being acted upon by an outside agent against his will. It is evil in the eye of the one being punished, though in actually the punishment is in response to a different action. If the punishment is to be just, it must be in response to a prior evil action (e.g. stealing is punishable by jail time); it must be proportionate to the crime (e.g. the state cannot kill a person for stealing a woman's purse); and, particularly in today's society, it must be performed by a legitimate authority such as a state or a parent.

In the case of the death penalty, we're talking specifically about a state putting to death a person for a particularly heinous crime. This cannot be a revenge killing. This cannot be killing just to rid us of all crooks, particularly more minor offenders. This must be an action of the state (even if it's determined by a judge or a jury) and not the decision of an individual. There are many, many caveats to the death penalty being legitimate, but ultimately the death penalty is a punishment. That is, it is a response to a particular action or set of actions. This is how it can be justified. These penalties, especially as necessary for the society, never rid the person of their dignity. Even in punishment there is a recognition of the sanctity of human life, even if individuals tend to forget it. Indeed, this is why the Church has moved so strongly against the death penalty in recent years. As the need for the death penalty wanes, we run the risk of making the death penalty an act of revenge and as long as it is unnecessary we run the risk of destroying and work toward the cultrue of life. This is not to say that it is always invalid, as Pope Benedict hinted in a letter to the United States a few years ago. Rather, it is completely unnecessary most of the time and if we ignore this lack of necessity, we run the risk of destroying the human dignity. There's a lot more here to be said, but I don't want to cause any problems. If you're interested in why this doesn't apply to torture beyond what I have below, I'll see if I can answer it.

Now for torture. Torture, as Al put it so well, is treating the person as a means to an end. The torture is not normally a punishment in response to a particular crime, though perhaps we can spin it that way. Torture is a pre-emptive action to get information from a person against his will. I mentioned above that punishment has this characteristic of being imposed on a person against his will. But I also noted the necessity of such punishment being in response to a particular evil action itself. In addition, I added the necessity of the punishment fitting the crime. Now even if you argue for torture being a punishment, which I most certainly do not, I don't think you can justify the action as "fitting the crime." Furthermore, I argue that nothing ever justifies turning a person into a means to an end. No matter what they have done, using them as a means and completely ignoring their dignity cannot ever be justified, period. That is to say, in no uncertain terms, torture is an intrinsic evil. It will never be justifiable under any circumstances. As an intrinsically evil action, there is no valid way to justify it, even if we could save a million lives from the information we gain. This whole justification is called proportionalism and it stands against everything the Church teaches on morality.

What about the case where we torture merely as punishment, if such a case exists? In this case wouldn't the punishment be justified if we aren't trying to extract information? Well, see my first statement on the agressor being killed. Is it proportional to the original action? Probably not. Is it necessary? If you're not trying to get information it isn't. Therefore, it cannot be licit.

I know part of this response is a preemptive response based on your question, but again, under no circumstances can torture be justified. The principle of double effect does not apply, as it would in the case of the agressor. For double effect to apply the action cannot be evil and there must be some other effect intended. In torture, while we can talk about our goal being to extract information, the manner in which we extract that information is itself an evil action. We aren't talking about merely extracting information, but turning a person into a means to an end. Torture, as an intrinsically evil action, cannot be justified. This is especially true because we choose the action of torture rather than the action of extracting information. Again this might sound like semantics, but it is a more accurate way to describe the situation.

Also the principle of punishment cannot apply to torture for the various reasons I gave above. The current Holy Father and previous Pope have both been extremely clear on this point. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have been a leading voice in fighting against Torture. It is very clear that our Church rejects torture as a valid option at any time.

[Winchester]

Give me a few days. I'm going on shift, and I want to actually read what you wrote.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1329388944' post='2387905']
Give me a few days. I'm going on shift, and I want to actually read what you wrote.
[/quote]Yeah, that's fine. Sorry it's about a four page essay..

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1329404430' post='2387940']
Yeah, that's fine. Sorry it's about a four page essay..
[/quote]
Don't apologize. This should be interesting.

[XIX]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1329362390' post='2387823']
Hah, you assume too much Socrates, and wrongly. I do give a lot of 'poos' about catholic moral teaching, and its not my fault that i listen to what you guys and the Church say that the Catholic Church represents, and paid attention. Ain't my fault that i care when someone is wrong either.
[/quote]
Good thing Socrates wasn't referring to you.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1329362390' post='2387823']
Hah, you assume too much Socrates, and wrongly. . . .
[/quote]
Um . . .

Actually you assumed too much, and wrongly, when you assumed I was referring to you.

I was responding to eagle_eye's response to Kujo.

Re-read my post, then follow the quote links, and you'll be good.

Sorry, it's not always about you.