What Is Moral Blameworthiness?

[rkwright]

I'm writing a paper for my law and theology class about sin, moral blameworthiness, and criminal law. I want to pitch part of it here and get some comments or further reading/research ideas. The paper has to be about something related between law and theology - I've chosen sin and criminal law.

The idea is this: Sin lies only in then intention of the actor, not in the act itself. Acts in and of themselves are morally neutral - they are simply a product of the natural world around us. What makes an action sinful is the intention behind the action.

Examples: I shoot someone and they die. What part of the action itself is sinful? Me pulling the trigger? The bullet hitting the person? Their heart stopping? None of these are in and of themselves sinful - they're just causal actions. In fact, based on what I've save one cannot determine whether "I shoot someone and they die" is actually sinful. What if "I shoot someone and they die" based on self-defense? Or if "I shoot someone and they die" because I hate them? There is no difference in the action, yet the difference in intent is what causes us to say the action is sinful. You can do this really with anything. What is the difference between me borrowing something and me stealing something.

Sometimes people speak of acts that are in and of themselves sinful, intrinsically disordered acts. But even then I think intent is what makes them sinful. Take a homosexual act. Certainly we would not say a person is guilty of a homosexual act when they did not intend the act (say they're raped). Once again its the intent of the act that makes it sinful (some people call this the "voluntary" requirement. I think voluntariness is just another way of saying you have the intent to do the act vs. being forced to do the act).

There is good Biblical support for this doctrine. Jesus says more than once that it is the heart which counts (talking about lust, anger, prayer, I'm also thinking of the whitewashed tombs of the Pharisees).

This has interesting legal consequences as well. Most of our criminal law requires both a bad act and intent (actus reus and mens rea). But if there are no truly bad acts, only bad intents then there is no point in focusing on the act itself. The logical end of this is that there is no point for the doctrine of attempts. There is no difference in the criminal intent between attempted murder and murder, attempted rape and rape. Also, manslaughter might disappear. One cannot "unintentionally" kill someone and be held morally responsible for it. This could be reformulated to say that the person had an intent to do an extremely reckless act, which is a punishable intent.

Some gray areas... DUI's. Whats the difference in the person who drives drunk and gets a DUI and one who drives drunk and kills someone? Nothing right? So do we impose the same penalty on someone guilty of a DUI as killing someone while driving drunk (manslaughter again).

Thoughts? Comments? Any further reading on this which might help the paper?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 September 2009 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1254239639' post='1974288']
I'm writing a paper for my law and theology class about sin, moral blameworthiness, and criminal law. I want to pitch part of it here and get some comments or further reading/research ideas. The paper has to be about something related between law and theology - I've chosen sin and criminal law.

The idea is this: Sin lies only in then intention of the actor, not in the act itself. Acts in and of themselves are morally neutral - they are simply a product of the natural world around us. What makes an action sinful is the intention behind the action.

Examples: I shoot someone and they die. What part of the action itself is sinful? Me pulling the trigger? The bullet hitting the person? Their heart stopping? None of these are in and of themselves sinful - they're just causal actions. In fact, based on what I've save one cannot determine whether "I shoot someone and they die" is actually sinful. What if "I shoot someone and they die" based on self-defense? Or if "I shoot someone and they die" because I hate them? There is no difference in the action, yet the difference in intent is what causes us to say the action is sinful. You can do this really with anything. What is the difference between me borrowing something and me stealing something.

Sometimes people speak of acts that are in and of themselves sinful, intrinsically disordered acts. But even then I think intent is what makes them sinful. Take a homosexual act. Certainly we would not say a person is guilty of a homosexual act when they did not intend the act (say they're raped). Once again its the intent of the act that makes it sinful (some people call this the "voluntary" requirement. I think voluntariness is just another way of saying you have the intent to do the act vs. being forced to do the act).

There is good Biblical support for this doctrine. Jesus says more than once that it is the heart which counts (talking about lust, anger, prayer, I'm also thinking of the whitewashed tombs of the Pharisees).

This has interesting legal consequences as well. Most of our criminal law requires both a bad act and intent (actus reus and mens rea). But if there are no truly bad acts, only bad intents then there is no point in focusing on the act itself. The logical end of this is that there is no point for the doctrine of attempts. There is no difference in the criminal intent between attempted murder and murder, attempted rape and rape. Also, manslaughter might disappear. One cannot "unintentionally" kill someone and be held morally responsible for it. This could be reformulated to say that the person had an intent to do an extremely reckless act, which is a punishable intent.

Some gray areas... DUI's. Whats the difference in the person who drives drunk and gets a DUI and one who drives drunk and kills someone? Nothing right? So do we impose the same penalty on someone guilty of a DUI as killing someone while driving drunk (manslaughter again).

Thoughts? Comments? Any further reading on this which might help the paper?
[/quote]

Sin is rebellion against God. You can kill someone, and it is not necessarily immoral. You cannot murder someone without it being immoral. Murder requires that one knowingly and willingly kills an innocent person. A completely insane person cannot, by definition, murder someone, because he does not know what he is doing.

There are two kinds of acts: an act of a man, and a human act. One is chosen by the will. The other is not. For example, sneezing. A human is sneezing. It is a human act. Is it an act of the will? No. It is not an "act of a man."

You should look into St. Thomas on this one.

As for the "law?" Policemen, judges and juries should stop meddling in God's business: trying to use physical force to punish a moral evil. This includes trying to punish someone's "intent." Such is the stupidity of "hate crime" laws. If you punch someone, it may be a misdemeanor. If you punch someone because he's a different color than you, oh, my friend, you're going to prison, because the act of punching a person who is of a different color means you are more dangerous than a person who punched him to take his money.

It's all nonsense. Remuneration of the victim and defense: these are the [i]only[/i] two acceptable roles of any statute-enforcement organization. And that organization should be market-based, not initiation-of-violence-based. You don't kill a rabid dog because he's a "bad dog," you kill a rabid dog because he may seriously injure or kill someone if he is not killed. Similarly, you don't kill someone because he's a "bad person," you kill him because would pose a grave threat to the life or limb of another person if he were [i]not[/i] killed. The Puritan notion that one may act like God and punish a person for his moral evil has got to die.

Just to forestall complaints about this, Romans 13:4 says "For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil."

Remember, the locusts were God's avengers, too. So were the Egyptians and the Babylonians. And the asps that God sent forth to bite the people for their sins. What St. Paul said does not mean we should not strive to keep from being plagued by locusts, tyrants and asps.

What St. Paul is [i]also[/i] not saying: "whatever the State does is good, because by definition, the State is God's minister." Is he?

We are also assured in Romans 8:28, "And we know that God causes allthings to work together for good to those who love God, to those who arecalled according to His purpose." That does not mean that God causedthe Nazis to kill over 10 million human beings. He [i]allowed[/i] it to happen, of course, and he uses the effects. That does not mean God approved of what the Nazis did.

The State is like the rain. It pounds down on the just and on the unjust. The State executes wrath upon him that doth [i]good[/i], as well. It has borne the sword against virtuous Catholics countless times. It executed wrath against Rosa Parks for refusing to stand for a white man. It bore the sword against runaway slaves, and against conscientious objectors. The State ultimately killed St. Paul himself. Was it "for good?" Did it "avenge God?"

Human positive law has two roles: the remuneration of the actual victim of a physical act, and defense from an actual, grave threat against life, limb, or property necessary to sustain life. Period.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 29, 2009 by Sternhauser

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='29 September 2009 - 05:13 PM' timestamp='1254262423' post='1974493']
Sin is rebellion against God. You can kill someone, and it is not necessarily immoral. You cannot murder someone without it being immoral. Murder requires that one knowingly and willingly kills an innocent person. A completely insane person cannot, by definition, murder someone, because he does not know what he is doing.
[/quote]
This is exactly what I'm saying above. What is sinful in murder? Is it because someone died, or is it because you intended to murder someone?

[quote]
There are two kinds of acts: an act of a man, and a human act. One is chosen by the will. The other is not. For example, sneezing. A human is sneezing. It is a human act. Is it an act of the will? No. It is not an "act of a man."

You should look into St. Thomas on this one.
[/quote]
I understand classic theology and law deal with both the actus reus and mens rea. My argument is that only the mens rea matters. I understand the difference in acts - but I would say it goes to mens rea. The act is sneezing, the mens rea is what is important.

[quote]
As for the "law?" Policemen, judges and juries should stop meddling in God's business: trying to use physical force to punish a moral evil. This includes trying to punish someone's "intent." Such is the stupidity of "hate crime" laws. If you punch someone, it may be a misdemeanor. If you punch someone because he's a different color than you, oh, my friend, you're going to prison, because the act of punching a person who is of a different color means you are more dangerous than a person who punched him to take his money.

It's all nonsense. Remuneration of the victim and defense: these are the [i]only[/i] two acceptable roles of any statute-enforcement organization. And that organization should be market-based, not initiation-of-violence-based. You don't kill a rabid dog because he's a "bad dog," you kill a rabid dog because he may seriously injure or kill someone if he is not killed. Similarly, you don't kill someone because he's a "bad person," you kill him because would pose a grave threat to the life or limb of another person if he were [i]not[/i] killed. The Puritan notion that one may act like God and punish a person for his moral evil has got to die.

Just to forestall complaints about this, Romans 13:4 says "For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil."

Remember, the locusts were God's avengers, too. So were the Egyptians and the Babylonians. And the asps that God sent forth to bite the people for their sins. What St. Paul said does not mean we should not strive to keep from being plagued by locusts, tyrants and asps.

What St. Paul is [i]also[/i] not saying: "whatever the State does is good, because by definition, the State is God's minister." Is he?

We are also assured in Romans 8:28, "And we know that God causes allthings to work together for good to those who love God, to those who arecalled according to His purpose." That does not mean that God causedthe Nazis to kill over 10 million human beings. He [i]allowed[/i] it to happen, of course, and he uses the effects. That does not mean God approved of what the Nazis did.

The State is like the rain. It pounds down on the just and on the unjust. The State executes wrath upon him that doth [i]good[/i], as well. It has borne the sword against virtuous Catholics countless times. It executed wrath against Rosa Parks for refusing to stand for a white man. It bore the sword against runaway slaves, and against conscientious objectors. The State ultimately killed St. Paul himself. Was it "for good?" Did it "avenge God?"

Human positive law has two roles: the remuneration of the actual victim of a physical act, and defense from an actual, grave threat against life, limb, or property necessary to sustain life. Period.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Interesting ideas. But I don't think it would work well. For example, if I hate you, but only you, and decide that you, and only you, should die and then I kill you... under your logic there is no reason for the law to "deal" with me. You, the victim is already dead, and since I only intend to kill you, only you, and never anyone else you cannot punish me based on an actual threat.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 September 2009 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1254274733' post='1974638']
This is exactly what I'm saying above. What is sinful in murder? Is it because someone died, or is it because you intended to murder someone?[/quote]

What is [i]sinful[/i] in murder is the fact that you intended to kill an innocent person. What makes it more evil, and you more culpable, includes your level of intent, your motives, your willingness, and the fact that you not only willed to kill an innocent person, but you actually deprived him of his life. The physical manifestation of all these spiritual things being repeated in the future is the only thing against which men may use force.


[quote name='rkwright']Interesting ideas. But I don't think it would work well. For example, if I hate you, but only you, and decide that you, and only you, should die and then I kill you... under your logic there is no reason for the law to "deal" with me. You, the victim is already dead, and since I only intend to kill you, only you, and never anyone else you cannot punish me based on an actual threat.
[/quote]

There is absolutely reason for enforcers of law to deal with you. Three good reasons, off the cuff:

First, how is anyone to know beyond a reasonable doubt that you only intended to kill one innocent person? Have you kept a diary? That diary would likely show evidence of your being a madman. Additionally, the word of a murderer is not very trustworthy.

Second, someone who kills an innocent man for any reason has in the very act proven that he is not capable of controlling his actions, and may very well decide in the future that he will want to kill "only one more person." The recidivism rate of violent offenders should give you enough prudence to make a safe bet on this matter.

Third, if you have deprived my family of the income they would have otherwise had, had you not murdered me, you owe them reparation for the physical harm which they have suffered. You are obliged to remunerate their economic loss to the best of your ability.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 30, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Laudate_Dominum]

[i]When it is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory.[/i]

[Resurrexi]

I thought that L_D might have something more meaningful to say when he returned.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='30 September 2009 - 04:47 AM' timestamp='1254300427' post='1974739']
I thought that L_D might have something more meaningful to say when he returned.


[/quote]
I appreciate your candor.

[Laudate_Dominum]

If I were more lucid atm I'd attempt to join in the discussion more substantially. Please do not take offense.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='29 September 2009 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1254275186' post='1974641']
What is [i]sinful[/i] in murder is the fact that you intended to kill an innocent person. What makes it more evil, and you more culpable, includes your level of intent, your motives, your willingness, and the fact that you not only willed to kill an innocent person, but you actually deprived him of his life. The physical manifestation of all these spiritual things being repeated in the future is the only thing against which men may use force.




There is absolutely reason for enforcers of law to deal with you. Three good reasons, off the cuff:

First, how is anyone to know beyond a reasonable doubt that you only intended to kill one innocent person? Have you kept a diary? That diary would likely show evidence of your being a madman. Additionally, the word of a murderer is not very trustworthy.

Second, someone who kills an innocent man for any reason has in the very act proven that he is not capable of controlling his actions, and may very well decide in the future that he will want to kill "only one more person." The recidivism rate of violent offenders should give you enough prudence to make a safe bet on this matter.

Third, if you have deprived my family of the income they would have otherwise had, had you not murdered me, you owe them reparation for the physical harm which they have suffered. You are obliged to remunerate their economic loss to the best of your ability.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

A brief reply. I kept thinking about your original post and I think we're talking about two different aspects of law. You seem to be talking more about the purpose of law, what law should protect/punish. My discussion is more on how do we prove those who have violated the law, whether its a law that looks more like your system or one that we currently have. I am not arguing that we change what is against the law, rather I am arguing that we change how we determine who has broken the law. I hope you see the difference.

Without going too far in depth I can give you a brief reply on your proposed "system" of law. Maybe it would be better for a new topic on that if you wish.

Your system appears to be a board generalization of what the law already is. The purpose of civil law is to compensate victims for their loss. In your original post you mentioned the "actual victim" but then in this last one you expanded to family or it seems really to anyone who suffered harm. I see no difference in your "first" law and the entire civil system.

I think the same could be said of your second law. Some scholars view the entire criminal system as a way to protect other's in society. I do think its interesting that you stress the necessity that if I kill one person I will kill another. I made it a point to say that I would kill only one person, only you. Sounds like your punishing future crimes that have not been committed.

Anyways, I think we're talking about different things in my original post and your follow up reply. I could ask you the same questions I posed in my original post in your new "system" of laws. In your "system" is the attempted murder any less guilty than the real murder and deserving of any less punishment/isolation from society?

[dairygirl4u2c]

"whoever looks upon X with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" "if you say I hate my brother, you have committed murder"

intentions are all that matters.
id wonder if anyone disagrees.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='30 September 2009 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1254331351' post='1974895']
"whoever looks upon X with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" "if you say I hate my brother, you have committed murder"

intentions are all that matters.
id wonder if anyone disagrees.
[/quote]
I disagree!!

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' date='30 September 2009 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1254323693' post='1974837']
Your system appears to be a board generalization of what the law already is. The purpose of civil law is to compensate victims for their loss. In your original post you mentioned the "actual victim" but then in this last one you expanded to family or it seems really to anyone who suffered harm. I see no difference in your "first" law and the entire civil system. [/quote]

My family would be actual victims of a physical act. They would be unjustly deprived of physical goods which they would have had, if you had not killed me. That is real physical harm.

[quote]I think the same could be said of your second law. Some scholars view the entire criminal system as a way to protect other's in society. I do think its interesting that you stress the necessity that if I kill one person I will kill another. I made it a point to say that I would kill only one person, only you.[/quote]

Rapists and pedophiles often say they are entirely reformed, right after their first conviction. It would be foolish to believe a rapist or a murderer.

[quote]Sounds like your punishing future crimes that have not been committed.[/quote]

I never said anything about men "punishing" anyone for crimes, and I do not believe in "punishing" future crimes. I believe in preventing them. Look at the recidivism rates of violent offenders. They show that seldom does anyone simply commit one major crime. There is a long, drawn out pattern. The pattern can start anytime. If you kill an innocent, you have shown you do not have proper control over your actions. Killing you would not be not "punishing" you for murder, any more than shooting a rabid dog is "punishing him" for biting people.


[quote]Anyways, I think we're talking about different things in my original post and your follow up reply. I could ask you the same questions I posed in my original post in your new "system" of laws. In your "system" is the attempted murder any less guilty than the real murder and deserving of any less punishment/isolation from society?
[/quote]

An attempted murder? If you physically tried to kill an innocent (and not merely [i]wanted[/i] to kill him) what I said would be still be applicable. You physically manifested your clear intent to kill an innocent, and have thereby proven yourself a threat to innocent life. And again, in my system, it is not about "punishment." It is about remuneration for harm done, and preventing future crimes.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 1, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='30 September 2009 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1254331351' post='1974895']
"whoever looks upon X with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" "if you say I hate my brother, you have committed murder"

intentions are all that matters.
id wonder if anyone disagrees.
[/quote]

An intention is all that is [i]necessary, spiritually,[/i] to be guilty of murder. You are not [i]physically[/i] guilty of murder until there's a corpse. Furthermore, the mystical covenant of marriage has no place being enforced by men with guns. Force may only be used to enforce a human contract concerning physical goods. This is why it is licit for Catholics to get divorced, but not remarry. The covenant remains, but the civil contract is dissolved.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 1, 2009 by Sternhauser