neo-Thomism

[qfnol31]

A tyrant of a town decides to throw a contreceptive agent into the water that everyone drinks (though it is not the only source of water in a town, it is the one everyone drinks). It is a non-abortifacient. The people drink this water and have intercourse. (Of course, no one gets pregnant because there is a contraceptive in the water).

Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, are the citizens committing an [b]evil[/b] act?


Saddam Hussein has suddenly regained control of Iraq again. Delta Force is sent in to deal with him. A guy gets in and has the possibility to get out, but fears for his life. He decides to kill Saddam because he is afraid that Saddam would be too dangerous to keep alive at all, though he knows he can easily escape the building with Saddam and take him out of the country without any threat to either of their lives.

Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, is the man committing an [b]evil[/b] act?


A man goes out into the woods and shoots what he thinks to be a bear, but was actually a person. He kills him with the shot.

Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, is the man committing an [b]evil[/b] act?

[philothea]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 7 2005, 01:10 AM']A tyrant of a town decides to throw a contreceptive agent into the water that everyone drinks (though it is not the only source of water in a town, it is the one everyone drinks).  It is a non-abortifacient.  The people drink this water and have intercourse.  (Of course, no one gets pregnant because there is a contraceptive in the water).

Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, are the citizens committing an [b]evil[/b] act?[right][snapback]714101[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No. Intercourse is good. Even sterile married people benefit from it.

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 7 2005, 01:10 AM']Saddam Hussein has suddenly regained control of Iraq again.  Delta Force is sent in to deal with him.  A guy gets in and has the possibility to get out, but fears for his life.  He decides to kill Saddam because he is afraid that Saddam would be too dangerous to keep alive at all, though he knows he can easily escape the building with Saddam and take him out of the country without any threat to either of their lives.

Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, is the man committing an [b]evil[/b] act?[right][snapback]714101[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think so. Killing someone is always an overtly evil act. He's not acting as an official agent of the state, and he's not acting in self defense.

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 7 2005, 01:10 AM']A man goes out into the woods and shoots what he thinks to be a bear, but was actually a person.  He kills him with the shot.

Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, is the man committing an [b]evil[/b] act?
[right][snapback]714101[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No. No harm was intended. It was a mistake. (Though I would want to know why he's shooting the bear.)

[hierochloe]

I agree with philo on all counts.

[Nathan]

Ditto.

[MC Just]

what is neo-thomism and whats wrong with just "thomism".

[Era Might]

[quote]what is neo-thomism and whats wrong with just "thomism". [/quote]

There can be a lot of things wrong with it, particularly if you were never a Thomist to begin with. :

I'm no expert on Thomism, but I believe "neo-Thomism" is, among other things, an attempt to blend the philosophy of Phenomenology with Thomistic thought. Among the proponents were Dietrich Von Hildebrand (husband of Alice Von Hildebrand), Joseph Piper, and Karol Wojtyla.

Thomas himself certainly would not suffer his work to remain stagnant. The work of a theologian/philosopher is meant to be engaged and expanded upon, precisely what he did in his own age.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Era Might

[MC Just]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 10:26 AM']There can be a lot of things wrong with it, particularly if you were never a Thomist to begin with.  :

I'm no expert on Thomism, but I believe "neo-Thomism" is, among other things, an attempt to blend the philosophy of Phenomenology with Thomistic thought. Among the proponents were Dietrich Von Hildebrand (husband of Alice Von Hildebrand), Joseph Piper, and Karol Wojtyla.

Thomas himself certainly would not suffer his work to remain stagnant. The work of a theologian/philosopher is meant to be engaged and expanded upon, precisely what he did in his own age.
[right][snapback]714326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


ah in other words "modernise". ah ok i gotcha.

[Era Might]

Of course. Such is the nature of intellectual thought. St. Thomas himself "modernized" Aristotle and Plato by blending them with the Fathers. He also "modernized" the Fathers by blending them with Aristotle and Plato.

There's an old saying: Sine Aristototle, Thoma mutus est (Without Aristotle, Thomas would be silent). Philosophers/theologians must have a foundation on which to build. They must take someone else's work, and advance it.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Era Might

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 7 2005, 02:10 AM']A tyrant of a town decides to throw a contreceptive agent into the water that everyone drinks (though it is not the only source of water in a town, it is the one everyone drinks).  It is a non-abortifacient.  The people drink this water and have intercourse.  (Of course, no one gets pregnant because there is a contraceptive in the water).

Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, are the citizens committing an [b]evil[/b] act?
Saddam Hussein has suddenly regained control of Iraq again.  Delta Force is sent in to deal with him.  A guy gets in and has the possibility to get out, but fears for his life.  He decides to kill Saddam because he is afraid that Saddam would be too dangerous to keep alive at all, though he knows he can easily escape the building with Saddam and take him out of the country without any threat to either of their lives.

Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, is the man committing an [b]evil[/b] act?
A man goes out into the woods and shoots what he thinks to be a bear, but was actually a person.  He kills him with the shot.

Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, is the man committing an [b]evil[/b] act?
[right][snapback]714101[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, yes, and yes. Whether they are sinful or not is another question (in which case I would say maybe [depending on other factors], yes [the man has no authority to do such], and no [accidents to not constitute sins]).

That's what I've always understood. Sinful refers to the subject, evil refers to the object.

Not sure if that's what neo-Thomism would teach, though. I think it's mostly a definition problem.

A side story, my mom has a friend who was the shooter in your third situation...accidentally shot his brother-in-law. Realized it and stayed with him holding him until he died while the ambulance was on the way. The dying man kept talking about God and saying it was all okay and the shooter didn't sin and that he forgave him, etc.

[philothea]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 7 2005, 10:55 AM']Yes, yes, and yes.  Whether they are sinful or not is another question (in which case I would say maybe [depending on other factors], yes [the man has no authority to do such], and no [accidents to not constitute sins]).

That's what I've always understood.  Sinful refers to the subject, evil refers to the object.

Not sure if that's what neo-Thomism would teach, though.  I think it's mostly a definition problem.
[right][snapback]714366[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So you are defining evil as "imperfect" while I am defining it as "an act of will against God"?

The reason I prefer the latter is that it's all an individual can hope to control (and all God cares about -- He takes care of everything else). Your definition would reduce me to helpless perpetual scruples.

Considering the first case, would chemical-induced sterility (as from pollutants) make a married couple's intercourse evil also? What about the natural effects of aging on a woman's fertility? What about intercourse during non-fertile times?

[Era Might]

Remember, also, that evil is classified according to natural evil and moral evil. The book of Isaiah notes that God is the "author of evil", but it refers to natural evil, not moral evil.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Sep 7 2005, 02:28 PM']Remember, also, that evil is classified according to natural evil and moral evil. The book of Isaiah notes that God is the "author of evil", but it refers to natural evil, not moral evil.
[right][snapback]714503[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, I think this is the distinction I've been looking for. I'm referring to "evils" in the sense of things we try to avoid...not things we shouldn't do.

Philothea, I am scrupulous, so perhaps that has something to do with my outlook.

However, I think what I mean is this. Killing is always an evil (someone has been killed...come on, it's sad), but not always a sin. When it's a sin, we call it murder.

Now, some may say that only murder is an evil, and if you define evil as "willfully doing something against God" then yes, only murder would necessarily be evil and not necessarily killing. The distinction lies in terminology.

Your terminology seems to be "imperfection" and "evil" whereas mine is "evil" and "sin," respectively.

I'd like the whole terminology issue cleared up. Would someone who knows with certainty what the proper terminology is please clear it up?

Additionally, I'm seeing "natural evil," but I'm also still seeing a distinction between "moral evil" and "intended moral evil"...because if killing is a moral evil (it's an action, and therefore higher than something that just happens, as in the case of a natural evil), then murder must be a worse kind still. I almost want to say that there is "natural evil" and then split "moral evil" into "accident" and "sin."

[Era Might]

Considered in itself, it is not a moral evil to kill another man. When a soldier kills an enemy, he does not committ a moral evil. The physical act, in itself, is morally neutral. Circumstantial considerations (eg, malice) can impute guilt to the person, but those considerations deal with personal culpability. They do not make a morally good (or neutral) act morally evil; for example, almsgiving is not rendered morally evil because it is done with pride.

Death in general is, however, a natural evil. That is, God never intended for man to die. That we do die indicates a lack of fulfillment of the original divine plan. "Evil" is also considered a lack of something, in this case, a lack of fulfillment of God's original plan for humanity.

An accidental homicide is thus a natural evil. Man was never meant to die. This man did, and you caused it in a direct sense. Hence, his death is a natural evil, something not intended originally by God. But there are no circumstantial considerations that can impute moral guilt, because it was an accident.

Edited September 7, 2005 by Era Might

[Theoketos]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Sep 7 2005, 10:36 AM']ah in other words "modernise". ah ok i gotcha.
[right][snapback]714341[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Only if you by modern you mean, John Paul II, who is Karol Wojytla. New does mean modern, all things in moderninty do not mean liberalism.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 7 2005, 01:10 AM']
A tyrant of a town decides to throw a contreceptive agent into the water that everyone drinks (though it is not the only source of water in a town, it is the one everyone drinks). It is a non-abortifacient. The people drink this water and have intercourse. (Of course, no one gets pregnant because there is a contraceptive in the water).

Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, are the citizens committing an [b]evil[/b] act?
[/QUOTE]

Malum Non Culpa
[QUOTE]
Saddam Hussein has suddenly regained control of Iraq again. Delta Force is sent in to deal with him. A guy gets in and has the possibility to get out, but fears for his life. He decides to kill Saddam because he is afraid that Saddam would be too dangerous to keep alive at all, though he knows he can easily escape the building with Saddam and take him out of the country without any threat to either of their lives.

[/QUOTE]

Malum Non Culpa

[QUOTE]
A man goes out into the woods and shoots what he thinks to be a bear, but was actually a person. He kills him with the shot.


[/QUOTE]

Malum less culpbaility.
Based on [b]just these[/b] facts, is the man committing an [b]evil[/b] act?
[right][snapback]714101[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]