Physical evils, such as floods, tornadoes, blizzards, man-eating tigers, and dangerous microbes, are bad for us but good in their being.

What practical application does this view have? Since the Catholic view is that Ebola is objectively good but bad relative to humans, can the Catholic view coherently say it would be morally right to cure Ebola, i.e. morally right to pursue a relative good at the expense of an objective good?

By contrast, the humanist view is that there is only "good for us", and no such thing as "good in itself", so curing Ebola is for atheists purely pursuit of a good, as the destruction of Ebola microbes is for us not the destruction of something with any mysterious objective "goodness in itself".

evil is created for consumation purposes only. tiger, lion, leopard are designed as predators, and sheep, cattle, giraffe are designed as preys. so we can detect design everywhere, whether be it good or evil

So there was predation before Adam and Eve fell? Animals ate animals?

not exactly true! the bible plainly explain that the cause of evil is transgression of laws. God instituted laws to the first couple (knowledge of the good and evil, for example). and free will. God has told them not to disobey His words or else they suffer the consequences (thorns grow, death)..

why atheists are so concerned about evil's presence when they don't believe in morality? you can't know evil if you don't know good. anyway, life is just made of 'bags of chemicals.. (according to atheists) then why bother so much if animals ate animals, man kills each other?

That's the Phil Robertson argument against atheism - that since we are all bags of chemicals we have no moral sensibility and accept all actions and morally neutral. Except that the true atheist position (IMHO) is that because humans possess sophisticated cognition (which is still based on a chemical and electrical process) we have the ability to choose behaviors that promote harmony and peace because they are sensible activities for the continuance of humans individually and collectively. Activities that promote civilization are why we can have nice things.

Do you agree with the Phil Robertson atheism story?

the Bible plainly explain why evil persists. i didn't mention any Phil Robertson's on this subject, to make it clear to you!

i am asking atheists why there is such concept as morality! animal's 'chemical and electrical process' also exist in their physical body, and why they don't possess any 'moral values' that humans have? yes they have some forms of morality (caring of their babies - so that their 'seeds' will continue to live on).

quote: 'because humans possess sophisticated cognition (which is still based on a chemical and electrical process)' - so can you tell me how it originated? even if these chemical things are present in the 'morality' processess, what caused them to arrive on it? (it still require a mind)

quote: 'we have the ability to choose behaviors that promote harmony and peace because they are sensible activities for the continuance of humans individually and collectively. Activities that promote civilization are why we can have nice things.' - then why animals don't have that? why, for example, preys do not 'meet with each other' and call to fight predators? why animals can't built cities, communities? according to evolution, man and animals are of the same 'chemicals and electrical process'? they are just evolved?

Because they don't have sufficient intelligence to have civilization. And Phil Robertson's story had to do with atheists not having moral sensibilities so why would they care if someone murdered their family. Did you find his story funny?

" and why they don't possess any 'moral values' that humans have? "

Morals arise because they are fit for our survival. For instance, why would herd of buffalo bother to stand together, against a lion attack,rather than each of them just run so as to save themselves ?

Humans as social beings,are also adopting the same survival. Empathy has social survival benefit

I wonder why one buffalo doesn't just sacrifice himself so that the others can get away? Sort of like the self-sacrifice of Gandalf.

Strange way to react to dialog.Are you Christian?

I am Catholic, therefore I love LOTR.
Morality has not arisen due to human empathy and social survival, rather it has been written on our hearts. Gandolf chose self-sacrifice to save Frodo and the others based upon his love of them not based upon empathy or survival of the species.

Morality has not arisen due to human empathy and social survival, rather it has been written on our hearts.

"Written on our hearts" is a metaphor, wouldn't you imagine?

If it is a meaningful metaphor, why couldn't morality arise from empathy? Isn't empathy the essence of "love your neighbor as yourself"?

Some issues of morality require lengthy, complex reasoning. (Here's something I read years ago that came to mind. It is not required reading here. It's just an example of complex moral reasoning, and I am sure there are many examples even more complex.) Others are unresolved. (Can you lie to the Nazis to protect Anne Frank?) I don't think such matters can be figured out by consulting one's heart.

Also, the culture in which a person grows up, and socialization by the family, teachers, and neighbors is going to have a profound effect on what a person believes (and feels) is right or wrong.

" (Can you lie to the Nazis to protect Anne Frank?) "

Just a note on this single point. You have used this example before, and I would suggest that it really is not an unresolved issue.

Following the principles of Ludwig Wittgenstein's sprachspeilen , one must watch the context in which a statement is made and the understanding one should expect.

In natural law ethics, one is not morally obliged to tell the whole truth to the Nazis, since they are in no way entitled to it. That does not mean one can lie, and it is NOT a lie, because they should know that no one is going to say "Yes" in such a context. Thus the "No" is a wide mental reservation, meaning "No, as far as you are concerned" with the "as far as you are concerned" not being said. Just as when a mother tells Johnny to tell the salesman she is not home, he should understand that she is not home to him.

Many people do not understand the complex nature of speech and that not everything people think of as lies really are such. Conversely, a strict mental reservation is of such nature that the hearer has no way of guessing that the whole truth is not being expressed, as if one were to say to the Nazis, "No, she is in Paris," but meaning only in one's imagination. Thus a strict mental reservation is actually a real lie.

Next time someone asks you how you are doing today and you say "Fine," realize that he isn't really expecting you to tell him about your painful ingrown toenail -- so your answer is not a lie, but is rather the sort of thing Wittgenstein means by his "language games."

David Nickol
Lying to save Anne Frank from Nazis? Technically if you did that it's a venial sin not a mortal sin. Like stealing a single grape from the Supermarket.

They fleshed this out over at Feser's.
https://edwardfeser.blogspo...

I will try to weigh in on this tomorrow, since it is getting late, but I believe you and Dr. Bonnette are not on the same page.

It seems to me you are implying it is okay to commit a venial sin if it is done with good intentions. Remember the famous Newman quote:

The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.

If that is true, and it is a venial sin to say to the Nazis, "No, Anne Frank is not in the attic" when she is, then it is better to tell the truth and let the Nazis get Anne Frank.

It's not ok to commit a venial sin but it is not as severe. You don't loose salvation but you come up to the line. Of course as Feser pointed out there are ways you can mislead someone without lying. Just like you can kill someone without murdering them. You can equivocate for example.

Nazi: Are there Jews in the basement?
Me: No! (In my head: Just for today I am adopting an extreme Catholic Supercessionist view of Judaism being completely replaced by the Catholic religion. Thus the people I am hiding in the basement aren't real Jews but belong to a dead religion with the pretension of being judaism so what I am saying is technically true. I am not hiding Jews.)

Me: No! (In my head: Just for today . . .

Nothing I have ever read on either side of the debate has led me to believe that this kind of "mental reservation" could be considered anything but a lie, plain and simple. If I can rearrange reality in my head and then use that as a basis for a response, it seems to me there is no deception I can't accomplish in one way or another.

That is likely because you could be a consequentialist and don't know it? Misleading people is not the same as lying just as killing is not the same as murder. Not having s e ,x with the wife when she is fertile is not birth control either(either you or Adams have argued it is I forget which? Forgive me. ) The consequences are the same. I mislead the guy but morally it is not the same as lying thought the practical effects are the same. Just like if I kill a man who is trying to kill me he becomes dead but that doesn't make me a murderer.

Dennis Bonnette

I believe your example falls into the category of strict mental reservation and therefore in the situation you describe would be a lie.

A metal reservation is not a moral action thus it cannot be a lie thought it does allow for someone to be mislead. This is just like the MFP Birth control objection (which I apologize for not remembering if it was you or Adams). But I am going to punt this one to Dr. B.

Now you both have me confused as to what statement you are talking about! Is it this one?

:>" No! (In my head: Just for today I am adopting an extreme Catholic Supercessionist view of Judaism being completely replaced by the Catholic religion. Thus the people I am hiding in the basement aren't real Jews but belong to a dead religion with the pretension of being judaism so what I am saying is technically true. I am not hiding Jews.)"

When I first saw that one, I thought it was a strict mental reservation as well, which would be a lie.

What is misleading is the wild, but silent, rationale for the "No" being a true statement.

But the fact remains that all that was said was "No."

While the rationale behind it is contorted out of reality, it could be a true rationale. I would much prefer the silent or mental part being something more straightforward, such as "as far as you Nazis are concerned."

Nonetheless, I think the hallmark of a strict reservation is that there is no conceivable way to make the statement true -- mental reservation or not. For example, saying, "No, she has gone to Paris," positively misleads away from the truth in such fashion that the hearer has no way of getting a true meaning out of the statement -- whereas, just saying "No" or even "No, she is not here" is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for a true interpretation -- since even saying "she is not here" can be read as meaning "she is not here as far as you are concerned or as far as you have any right to know.

I know this whole area entails complex reasoning and is so open to moral abuse that I always counsel students to simply try to tell the truth as far as is possible, and when it is no longer possible, just shut up.

Usually, human beings are sufficiently adept at playing "language games" that we can mislead, misdirect, ignore, and confuse enough to avoid a direct answer to a question and thereby avoid any "need" to lie.

Lying IS always wrong because it is intrinsically wrong. It entails deliberately conveying to another mind what my mind knows to be untrue, which is to use the communicative faculty in an anti-communicative way -- a moral contradiction in terms, which offends the rational use of our faculties designed by God.

It is wrong for the same reason contraception is wrong, since the parallel is that contraception is an anti-procreative procreative act -- again, a moral contradiction in terms.

Dr. B.

Of course some Catholics in that discussion over at Feser's blog actually said it was alright to tell a white lie. At the time reacting from my gut I said I would do it because it was merely a venial sin. Dave's quote from
Nazis have no right to the correct knowledge Jews might be in my basement & the New Testament says one is a Jew inwardly not outwardly.
Dave's quote from Newman did gave me pause. I think I have the skill to obfuscate. It is like saying nothing only changing the subject.

In natural law ethics, one is not morally obliged to tell the whole truth to the Nazis, since they are in no way entitled to it.

Interesting fact. The first English edition of the Catechism had a definition of lying that was "corrected" in the second edition. The definitions were as follows:

First Edition: To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.

Second Edition: To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

I have read accounts that say the first edition was correct but was simplified so as not to cause confusion. I have also seen accounts that claim theologians wrote to Rome to request a change in the second edition since the first edition was in error.

Just as when a mother tells Johnny to tell the salesman she is not home, he should understand that she is not home to him.

LOL. I remember my mother giving me almost exactly the same example when I was a kid, except I think she used a businessman and a secretary. I don't want to say exactly how long ago that was, but it was a long time ago!

I just read the column in which Dr. Feser discusses this exact issue and found that he consistently calls the act "lying" in every instance. He says nothing at all about mental reservations or the distinction between wide ones and strict ones (outright lies).

This whole subject of lying is fascinating, since most people have a very strict notion of lying that leads to the absurd inference that everyone lies at one time or another, thereby making the defense of always telling the truth seem absurd.

Very few people explore the "language game" explanations of Wittgenstein, and therefore it becomes like interpreting Genesis absolutely literally and getting absurd interpretations.

We use language in many "game" understandings in which communication is not perverted or contradicted, but in which the language often simply does not mean what it says on the surface -- yet the people communicating know perfectly well what is meant.

The most obvious example is one I gave above. When someone asks "How are you today?", they do not expect you to tell them about every least ailment you are suffering. In fact, you could not feel very well at all, but honestly reply, "Just fine," since they really do not want to hear all your woes, but are merely being polite.

That is also why, even when under sworn oath on the witness stand, where you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -- no one still expects the WHOLE truth. If you are asked what you were doing on the morning of the 23rd, you are not expected to say which foot hit the floor first as you got out of bed that morning, or what you had for breakfast. It is the context that makes communication effective and, as a whole, truthful.

Thus, traditional moralists have developed the technical explanation of mental reservations, which some accuse of being a way to say that a lie is not a lie -- but that is to twist and misunderstand its proper application.

Thus, again, when the Nazis ask if you are hiding Anne Frank, it is NOT A LIE to say "No." Were you to then add that she went to Paris, that would be a strict mental reservation that the Nazis could not misinterpret as anything but a lie if then then discovered her hiding in your attic. The point is that the strict mental reservation is a clear communication of something contrary to what is in your mind, whereas the wide reservation can and should be understood as part of the "language games" that readily deceive no one in ordinary discourse.

That is why when you say "No" to the Nazis, you risk being interrogated more closely to force you to tell the COMPLETE details, since the initial "No" did not, in fact, deceive them!

Some years ago (2011), an anti-abortion group called Live Action engaged in various deceptions to interact with, and surreptitiously record, employees of Planned Parenthood. A debate ensued among some "heavy hitters" in conservative Catholic circles as to whether the deceptions employed by Live Action constituted lying, and whether lying was always wrong. Christopher Tollefsen’s article titled Truth, Love, and Live Action in The Public Discourse was among the first to criticize Live Action. Christopher Kaczor disagreed with Tollefsen in a response entitled In Defense of Live Action. Tollefsen replied to Kaczor in his article Why Lying is Always Wrong. Robert George supported Tollefsen in a piece on Mirror of Justice titled Life and Truth, and Janet E. Smith’s article Fig Leaves and Falsehoods on First Things supported the view that lying is not always wrong (or at least that not all deliberate deceptions are lying). It seems clear to me from this debate, and from the Feser article that Jim the Scott linked to, that this issue is not settled.

Regarding what you say about Wittgenstein and also about mental reservation, it seems to me that unless all parties involved are not in on the "game," untruths may be lies. For example, if a salesman is trying to reach a businessman, and the businessman's secretary says, "He is not in," the salesman is likely to understand the secretary is saying, "He is not in . . . to you." And if the salesman does not understand, we might take it as his fault for not being aware of business conventions. But if the businessman's boss (lawyer, doctor, wife, probation officer) calls, then "He is not in" may well be considered a lie, since they may reasonably expect not to be players in the game of "He is not in . . . to you."

By the way, I list the articles above that I found fascinating at the time of the original debate, but I am not proposing we read them all and debate them! For those who are interested in even more, however, a comprehensive roundup of most of the pertinent articles published at the time may be found here.

I think that your analysis of the case with the salesman being told by the secretary that "he is not in" is correct and properly analogous to that of the Nazis being told Anne Frank is not there, since both should know that the "language game" allows use of a broad mental reservation in those cases -- since they have no right to the full truth. Again, in those cases in which those calling have a perfect right to expect a straight answer, such an answer becomes a strict mental reservation, since the hear has no possible way of knowing it is not the full truth.

Despite the debate you describe above, I think that the distinction between broad and strict mental reservations, combined with the fact that we all play conventionally understood "language games," is sufficient to explain how a true lie is never permitted, whereas broad mental reservations are licit -- even though there is risk of abuse. I also recognize that there is some danger that certain people may not understand the nature of a given language game and may, thereby, be deceived in the process.

I still think, though, that the general moral principle not to lie rests on the fact that speech is the faculty for communication of the truth in one mind to another. Therefore, to deliberately formulate speech in a manner that is totally and irremediably deceptive is simply a lie which can never be made morally licit. I mean, of course, in a fashion that the hearer has absolutely no way of realizing that the words might not convey the meaning that he thinks he hears.

Yes i agree.Empathy is "fit for" groups of social beings survival.So therefore "survival of the fittest" being, doesn't necessarily need to always be about an "every man for themselves" selfish kind of lifestyle.Without adopting the empathy trait, humans possibly mightn't have been able to have survived .Specially against attack from big ferocious cats.Or wolves

Same thing also apply's to herds of buffalo too.Without the empathy trait,buffalo might have become extinct

Isn't empathy the essence of "love your neighbor as yourself"?

It may be the essence of it but it is not the foundation of it. I need to know what is good before I can love my neighbor as I should.

Also, the culture in which a person grows up, and socialization by the family, teachers, and neighbors is going to have a profound effect on what a person believes (and feels) is right or wrong.

That is true but it doesn't mean the person will actually know what is right and wrong. Following the first part of the great commandment is essential to being able to know how to follow the second part.

That is true but it doesn't mean the person will actually know what is right and wrong.

But it is "written in their hearts." Why can't they just "read" their hearts and know what is right or wrong?

They may be illiterate.

I'd kind of guessed you would likely be Christian.

Written onto living beings hearts huh?.So then, are you proposing that some animal wont have morality written on their hearts?.Why would some groups of animal display it ,while some others wont do?

Humans display empathy and compassion,but it doesn't necessarily mean they will sacrifice their own life always. However in saying that,even a buffalo could be considered as sacrificing their own life too, so as to save another buffalo,if in fact they may happen to end up getting killed by those attacking lions in the process of trying to protect one of their herd

Why would a dog try and go fetch another human,if the dogs owner were in some sort of big trouble, and might die from it ?

I enjoy LOTR too. I'm from NZ

“Written on our hearts” refers to our ability to intellectually recognize good and evil and to have the will to do good and avoid evil. So it refers to the unique abilities of RATIONAL beings. Other animals do not have that ability even though they may at times display some semblance of rationality.
Empathy is not the most noble reason to care for others, it is too “self” centered. It is better to do good because a world ordered to the good could be a perfect place.
Do you think Frodo was doing the good or being empathetic?

Frodo was doing what the story tellers planned Frodo to do.Do you think he wasn't ?.

You say empathy is self centered.Can you explain reasons why?.

It seem to me the idea of salvation in an eternity,purposely set up for humans,seems like its fairly self centered.What makes human think they should survive forever?.While animals are there for eating and human exploitation and so on.

Id like to see a comment from you, that involves some more in depth reasoning behind the comment.I feel ive provided some in depth reasoning as to how and why empathy might arise through evolution.This can also help explain to us why some animals will display act of empathy,while other animal might not do

More recent science studies are finding more and more, that a number animals and birds and so on,are perhaps not as irrational as we had previously thought they were

You say empathy is self centered.Can you explain reasons why?.

Considering how you yourself feel is part of the definition of empathy.

It seem to me the idea of salvation in an eternity,purposely set up for humans,seems like its fairly self centered.What makes human think they should survive forever?

That is not our decision, we have immaterial souls that will survive our material bodies.

The main distinction that I would make between humans and other animals is that humans are the only ones who are self-aware, we are able to contemplate our thoughts and actions.

Well you say humans are the only ones.ones.That's still based entirely on opinion.Science studies suggest different.More and more studies are concluding that the bible conclusion was wrong.I hazard to guess you'll accept medical science,I expect you wont rely on prayer alone, to heal yourself.Which make it look like believers will quite happily flip flop about, to suit themselves when need be

Anyway, all the best Rob

You'll have to show me an animal study that demonstrates that non-human animals are self-aware, then we can discuss the difference between their behavior and humans' behavior.

I definitely rely on prayer for healing, and I use natural means that are available also. It seems as though you have a stereotypical idea about Christians, hopefully you will keep dialoguing here and get to know some of the foundations of Catholicism and see how it compares to atheism.

There's heaps of those studies available Rob.I've got loads of other things i need to attend to.Perhaps you should do some research on the subject?. I might stop in here,now and then. But so far,i don't feel like i'd be using my time wisely. For instance,you expect me to point out the studies for you?.And our discussion,thus far has,seemed to me to be revolving around aspects of sophistry.I feel like perhaps i'd be tasked with chasing the rabbit up and down warrens

But at least neither of us has reverted to nastiness.That's great.That's one thing ive come to like about Catholic.Thanks for that.It also helps me to act likewise

Have a great day/night. And all the best

Thanks for the kind words.
When you have some time available you can read Dr. Bonnette's article on the subject: http://drbonnette.com/artic...

Can you point out science study that help back up your conclusion that ability to define good and evil is written on our hearts?

Do you disagree with neuroimaging suggestion its to do with aspect of our brain ?

Can you point out science study that help back up your conclusion that ability to define good and evil is written on our hearts?

no, does that prove that it's not true?

Do you disagree with neuroimaging suggestion its to do with aspect of our brain ?

no, the brain is certainly involved

Ahh so this belief is base entirely on opinion alone.I'll move on.All the best to you anyway Rob

The idea is that everything that has being is ontologically good. Nothing is inherently evil in its being. Lots of people have believed that materiality is bad.

I think all ideas if embraced have practical consequences as they are lived out. The Albigensian's, for example, saw matter as evil and so rejected marriage, fertile sex, and thought suicide was a good idea.

The Albigensians, for example, saw matter as evil and so rejected marriage, fertile sex, and thought suicide was a good idea.

Huh. Those rejections are non-sequiturs, though, because regardless of what outcomes occur, they'll still be made of matter. A campaign to annihilate matter via antimatter production would be much more to the point.

On the other hand, an obvious reason to reject fertile sex and endorse suicide is if life is not worth living. I suppose that could be metaphorically expressed as "matter is evil", meaning something like the Buddhist "life is suffering" but without the threat of reincarnation, or, more precisely, an admonition that charitable acts involve minimizing life.

If that's the case, then, should the Catholic claim that everything is "good in itself", being couched in language that is grammatically simple yet deliberately impossible to interpret in a verifiable way, be understood instead as the opposite metaphor? A strong way to put it, in reverse form to the Buddhist claim, would be "life is joy". The more precise meaning would be that charitable acts involve maximizing life. This does fit with the Catholic demands to carry to term all fetuses and to never permit compassionate killing. While it's a very optimistic notion, which can be sweet, in the presence of real suffering it's blatantly false, which is probably why it turns so cloying and maudlin.

By contrast, the humanist view is the untheological, common-sense idea that life is worth living in some situations and not worth living in other situations. It's not about minimizing or maximizing the numerical quantity and duration of life -- it's about filling life with many good experiences and few bad experiences.

The dualists saw themselves as spirit and matter, with spirit as good and matter as evil. So the desire was to escape matter. This was also a reason many in the ancient world saw the Incarnation as a scandal. God would never take on human flesh, they felt.

The Christian response, in philosophical language, is ontological good.

I think your final paragraph is perfectly logical and practical, given your premises.

I can't follow what you are getting at in your third paragraph, beginning with, "If that's the case."

They release articles on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays I think. :-)

I don't understand why SN did not wait for the official release of the document instead of jumping the gun here.

To the extent to which Kevin succeeds in the task he has set for himself, he will be providing background for Pope Francis's encyclical. So Kevin is not "jumping the gun."

Ryan and David both articulated my precise response.

Third principle:

In addition, everything in nature acts for an end or purpose.

That's always been one of most puzzling claims to me. How can the Catholic assertion of this principle be fitted onto the actual observed world, in which everything acts according to the local forces it currently experiences, with no input whatsoever from future states? Is it just a matter of faith? Is it just a decision to describe the evolution of physical systems in high-level terminology that is useful for daily life but imprecise and misleading at root?

One example, I think, is that the purpose of respiration is to give the body oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. That is its end or purpose, although it can do other things, like blow out birthday candles and help make sounds.