Is any natural thing moral?

Hello!!! :slight_smile: this is my first post here

I have questions if its moral to do anything

A: If everything can be logically related, including causes, or your actions, can eveyrthiing be related and not related to a sin at the same time, and not related, and related?

B: This question is a little bit about movment, if movement involves moving for oneself or selfish chemichal/nuerological feedback loops, is it selfish? If the idea of nurological egoism (eveyrthing is for the self), minding the nuroscience isent in on love, and I do think love is supernatural, since God is love, (and I tend to think its unselfish) is everything we do selfish, and a sin?

C: If we are suppose to not care for material things, not want or greed for material things, turn the other cheek to suffering, basically not be of the world, and actions are material things, then what can be considered evil to our neigbors (and by that I mean an evil that may happen to them)? Matthew 5:38 - 48, James 4 and possibly another passege (I will post here if remember/find/it isent James 4, possibly Timothy comes to mind) (NOTE: I know this may seem cruel, but I obviously care if harm comes to my neigbor, or something bad happens to them, or about good things I can do for my neighbor, I just am questiong purly philosophically or with sort of cold reasoning trying not to think of that too much, because I feel I have questions and want to do things morally properly because of love of neighbors, some more clarification below, and in B, not being of the world or the body not being fallen and or giveing away eveyrthing, loving enimes [which I agree with, as with all this] and stuff is I guess where I am slightly confused)

D: How does one act out of love, possibly considering B, and C? I ask this/these questions because I was living in a way that I thought addressed this, but in that way one thing I thought was for example, a relationship to someone closer to you was more important than another one, if an absolute choice has to be made, it is moral to choose the person who is more important in your life because the relationship or the love of them with them is/may be more imporant than the reletionship with the other person (though one could say, if the situation was possibly damaging to their relationships with others, or effects others, then you could take that into consideration as well), mostly considering small evil acts. Or an act that may be immoral, for example, paying a sales tax on a purchace that eventually may fund abortion or an execution or a bullet at war that kills someone, is an amount of harm that is negligable, or small (or perhapse not the proper channel, for example a vote may be the proper channel, but one still does moral evil in the course, is there always [potentially significant] a “proper channel?”), and takes such a long line of reasoning it is insinginificant, and doing what your doing, say for another person is more important. Or perhapse taking a frenchfry if its offered to you, though you may refuse politly at first, this would help build the relationship, but are you taking advantage of the person caring for you or wanting to be in a relationship with you, is it caring or loving to not take it or give it back, (or caring or loving to try to strengthen your relationship with them by taking it, though possibly doing a slight moral evil: selfishness) is this a selfish action for yourself, does it matter that its a small thing your taking for yourself (esepcially considering this could be self - sacrafice for the other person, and the idea of denotological reasonsing or disregard to consequences)? Another one is a lot of women (I dont meant sterotype too much but we are on a Catholic forum thank God that understands there is a difference between men and women, though I understand this isent doctrine), want you to affirm what they are saying when they are upset and want someone to talk to or listen. At times in order for this to be successful you may have to say “Yes.” It doesent really matter what it is too, but they want to get it out, or for you to listen. I have noticed it is at the end of this is when you may be able to give an opionion, or point out something that may be immoral. But during that intermendant time, if you say “yes” to something that is false or morally wrong (not nessisarly in the sense that you will do it), are you lying to them or particiapating in the action even if you plan to rebuke after? What if they take the advice and you dont have a chance to rebuke it afterwored, or you get inturupted? Is it still a moral evil if you say it? Or is it an act of love towards the person and is consoling them more important than the moral evil. Exchanging a few immoral sense for a few moral dollars? Or exchanging something possibly a little less important for something potentially more (that person, your relationship, etc. ). What if somone close to you asks you to do an immoral thing, even a small one (and I understand all sins are big), they dont think is immoral out of love for you? (James 4 and Im not sure but another passage possibly may be coming to mind again) Some of these things may seem to be moral evils or small ones, but they are still there. A quesiton I have is Matthew 5:38 - 48 it seems to me the person and the love of them is more important than the things you loose [or possibly the evil the enemy be possibly doing?]

E: What is considered contributing to an evil action? Matthew 5:38 - 48 Luke 17:14-15 (does he disobay Jesus command, then love Him, consider Jesus more imoratant, and live inside and return?) Does love, or God or people make an action good? Are all the things we consider to be a part of a certain type of evil action or a species of sin actually a part of it, when can we cosnider ourselves a part of that sin?

These are two seperate questions, A is not nessisairly impying B.

D (another sub - question): Is it wrong to basically live in the United States? A country that kills and takes from others, and is probabaly involved with some dark things? More so this thought comes to mind because even though I live in an aparemtnent, I have more luxories than a pharo did, like most in modern 1st world countries. Is it wrong for me to live this way, when I live here because of the people around me who I care about: when people are starving and dying in many countries where I could go help (or in general)? (is it bad that if I take the amount of money required to live here and spend it on myself [the aparetment] especially when I have the choice to spend it or all of it on others in need, is it wrong to be so distant from them [is it also wrong if someone I know, asks me for 1000$ and I could feed 100 children for a month with that money, to give it to him]? What about if others live here in this aparement?) Did Jesus want His deciples to also be poor? He sent them out to cities and told them not to bring cloaks or sandles. Is it morally acceptible to do anything less than give up everything, go to one of these countreis, help and preach/and or evangeilize to the poor? Isent it immoral, or bad to abanden your relationships with the people say in the United States who you love and care about to go do this as well (maily asking if that is for the rest of your life or extened time periods, I tend to think of leaving people as a bad thing because they, the love for them, the love they have for you, and your relationship to eachother, are more imporatant than any material thing [passion, dream, career, area, etc.] you are pursing, this seems like it may possbily be diffrenet because there are many others who you should love and who are important who need help in a way, charity, that is officially sanctioned and commanded by God, it also the question remains if there are more effective ways to help them and are these ways moral, or to go about it in the way of giving to others in typical manner) (is this a sort of, to put it in natural law terms, a
“double - effect?” possibly )

Im sorry if these questions are weird but they have been on my mind for a while…

Also if we are to obey all of God’s commands at all times, what about something like the doctrine of double-effect? One can view this as a corner case I suppose. The idea of the hedonistic -utilitarian multi - track trolly propblem comes to mind. Sort of an obscure situation, but is there a moral choice? All choices lead to evil, and things you arent suppose to do.

I hope some of this helps communicate what Im trying to ask… :confused:

Is this what Jesus wanted him (us as well) to do/is this what the people He healed are to do?

Also sorry for multiple posts, charechters/edit time ran out :blush: I do a lot of editing/adding/subtracting :blush:

I have alot of confusion about this stuff :blush: I also have confusion about some things on reading the Bible, but I think il make a differnet post about that :hypno:

Welcome to the forums!

That is a whole lot of stuff there. I would suggest breaking it off into bite sized pieces for us to discuss.

I agree with Hoosier Daddy. There is too much to try to digest in one go.

So, you’ve read Ecclesiastes? I’m getting the sense your bringing the wisdom of Ecclesiastes into your life. Your asking a lot of questions about this, that and the other.

My high school religion teacher, who was/is a nun, challenged us to come up with something that can be done that would not be considered selfish. We tried, and, of course, she shot everything down. But arguments like hers all depend on the individual’s definition of selfish which involve subtleties not found in a dictionary definition.

In the end, your entire post rolls back on itself under it’s own weight, and as Qoheleth says, “As to more than these, my son beware. Of the making of many books there is no end, and in much study there is weariness for the flesh.” (Ecclesiastes 11:12)

So to answer your question more directly, yes, I think movements can be moral. It’s really not up to us to decipher anything more than second order consequences; doing so gets to close to arrogance. Not to mention, it’s practically impossible anyway. Stick to 1st and 2nd order movements/consequences.

TFBrain - You have begun asking questions about morals in the wrong way. It starts with a discussion about happiness… What is the best kind of life? Why? Etc. When you see that it involves fulfilling purposes that are built into us, and that this fulfillment involves a certain kind of moderation, you will discover that there are virtues, which help us to be happy, and vices, which keep us from being happy. And then finally, after this, can you start talking about obligations.

You are just all about obligations, it seems. That is the end of the discussion, not the start, and you can get very caught up with the kind of things you are asking if you begin with obligation rather than happiness and virtue.

I’ll take this bite-sized piece:


What you see wrong in any particular venue, you may try to change as per your abilities and means.

Thank you for the reply, Im sorry for the amount of time it took for me to reply as well. I imagine I have read some quotes and passeges/possibly chapters of the ecclesiastes, however I have not sat down and read it. I have heard this idea where there can be no selfish acts before, and use to belive people were basically entirly selfish. However I dont think this argument is correct, not just on definitional grounds but several others, iv took note of it experiancially, I think there are substitute ideas (though I am struggling with the nurological/egoist ideas), and makes assumptions about the person/the persons actions esecially internally. My other lesser objection relates to the idea of everything being logically relatible, the natural expression of good acts could be logically related to a concept (possibly a closer rather than obsecure concept) wich avoids this idea, though Im not entierly certain. Also Im not entierly familiar with the idea of 2nd order consequences. I think I have worked on some ideas in my head that may be similar from a quick google. My question is, since it concerns the consequences rather than the act in itself (the consequecnes is an immoral act?) does it contridict the idea of evil being in the act? Also does being informed of the possible conseuqeces and doing an action that contributes/does an action to that effect (for example the idea with all things being logically relatble, ego doing any action being a sin) a sin?

Thank you for the reply, sorry for taking a while to reply. If I could rephrase my chunk - o - text a little bit: what if you see wrong in another venue when yours is particalularly wealthy or prosperous and/or possibly also sinful (or possibly these factors are irrelevant?)? In what way should you try to help, and should you be closer rather than further from it? Also what if the people you care for live in that venue?

Thank you for the reply! Sorry I took so long to reply. As far as what is the best kind of life I suppose that is what im trying to figure out in some ways, iv had a number of ideas but what (and I suppose this may be some of the content behind the thinking on obligations) I tend to think people and God and the love God has for his people people have for everyone and for God seem to give meaing (idk why or possibly dont entirly care why, or possibly dont know if a why [maybe a construct outside reason is present?] possibly with an idea of the precepts being involved?) Also are you refering to the primary precepts of natural law?

For me I use to be completely obsessed with morals and moral ideas. When the idea of love and poeple and God being important entered my life I was able to get rid of that for the most part, however morals have sort of put a monkey wrench into things for me. In terms of what is good and what is evil, I felt as long as I loved God and my neighbor generally/obeyed the commandments I was genrally good in that department, and could pretty much assume these things (some of the things listed above, living what seemd to be in general welfare [is it genral welfare? This includes working [especially thinking about the chemechials that are relesed in the brain/drives/motiviations], buying minimal things but what seems good/useful and or furfulls needs {is this greed?}], giving gifts to people/doing favors especially materially [is it a form of greed on the part of the other person {not because you give it to them, or it recived from another, just on the idea of taking material things in general}? Are you wrong by helping/being nice or especially givng a not entirly [likly matierally] needed gift? Not speaking nessisarly of chariy. I know this seems terrible… like I said I know some of this seems inhuman, im just asking from cold inquiry], doing things beyond nessisities that will contribute to your general welfare/make life easier/better especially for others, doing things that are not externally sins that help yourself but arent nessisarly for another, gereal functions in relationships, etc.), were good for the most part or acomplished more good than evil and some of the selfishness or greed was somewhat irrelevant or less important and that evil was everywhere. But more and more for more reasons it seemd more and more needed to reconsider this again.

Sorry, Il try to break down/explain more. Or probably work on this and repost in a reply on this thread. Sorry for the crummy repsonce, I typically take a long time editing, there is a time limit here, a lot of these are containing awkard ideas and spelling/grammer errors :blush: Il try to make sure the post is of a better quaility before I post :blush: Il start trying to do that more XD :blush:

If I understand your question correctly; yes, proceeding with an action even though you know it will have harmful consequences is a sin.

The first question you quote was aimed at the conept of secondary causes. The second is that if I know everything is logicaly relatible ergo evil, and I do something (pretty much anything), then am I knowingly doing something evil aka a sin. The reason I ask this in particular is to somewhat ask if this idea/knowelege would make it a first order/secondary order cause? Also can I logically relate the idea of a first or second order cause to pretty much anything else to a first or secondary order cause (just thought of this question now)?

I have no idea what you are asking.

Sometimes we have to do things that will cause damage to others, like pulling a lever to redirect a train away from 10 people which directs it towards 1 person… Is this what you are asking about?

Or are you just asking if everything is a sin because it will in some way do something undesirable to some person at some time? This is completely false. Do some reading on virtues and natural law.

Thank you for the reply, I have been looking for some good sources on natural law. Let me clarify, in the speecific thing I was talking about in the my previous post was in relation to part A of my question

A: If everything can be logically related, including causes, or your actions, can eveyrthiing be related and not related to a sin at the same time, and not related, and related?

if the definition of a sin is

1: intentional/knowelgeable act
2: moral evil/against God’s law

For instance murder

If I can logically relate anything I do to murder and logically relate it to intentioanly knowingly doing it (or logically relate any action to being murder) is anything I do murder. Specifically I was asking what you meant/the basis fo what you meant as second order causes (I am not entirly familiar), I later asked if second order causes can be logically related to an evil act/intention.

I am not asking if along the line if something I do will eventually harm someone (does harm always constitute sin, what if I needed to perform an amputation [this was the best example I could think of I dont nessisairly think its a good idea and think the Catholic doctrine probably says its a sin against the 5th commandment], to get a paitient out from a dangerious situation?), but rather if I am doing that act at that moment because of the idea that everything is logically relatible, possibly inculding intent, the idea of X sin, and an action.

Though when I was more of a consequentialist I did feel guilty about what you are speaking of and still do to a degree or at least feel hypocritical :frowning: :confused:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit