What is the law of morals in man’s heart? The worst sin is malice and deliberate choice of evil is worst. An animal is not capable of such is it?
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
The moral laws are those that can be known through simple consideration of reality, or those which are known innately by all people. One of the best examples is that murder is wrong. We don’t need anything to tell us this, we just know it.
A sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, would essentially be me making a conscious decision, and killing someone.
So if two people grew up alone on a deserted island, I know sounds silly; And there was a thought of what would amount to murder and carried out. It’s a sin? Even if there’s no law making it known to us? A law of man or a religious sect?
But an animal doesn’t consider, “Well you didn’t get my bone to me on time yesterday so I’m going to kill you tonight.” An animal, a dog for existence, has no malice does it? Even if mean? so it bites.
Yes, it would still be a sin because humans instinctively understand that murder is wrong.
Dogs, and other animals, cannot commit sins. They do not have rational souls and do not understand the distinction between good and evil.
And yet there some individuals who claim to not see this. They claim that the wrongness of an act can only be judged through a holistic examination of circumstances, and with a particular focus on consequences as having the capacity to render a seemingly bad act as good.
Eg. Some will argue that bad acts become tolerable, even morally obligatory, when the consequences of avoiding the bad act are worse than the consequences of committing it.
This of course directly opposes the Catholic moral principle of intrinsically evil acts - acts that cannot ever be moral.
There are also people who claim that the holocaust didn’t happen.
A group or individual’s obstinate refusal to acknowledge the Truth doesn’t make it any less true; it just makes them wrong. No matter how much a person may reject the moral law, that doesn’t change the fact that it is present on their hearts.
An intrinsically evil act yes. But killing someone in war is ok. So is it really intrinsically evil. That is doing your duty. Were ancient warlords vying for power and killing in war evil?
Killing itself is not intrinsically evil. Murder is intrinsically evil. Killing can be deemed a necessity when done to protect yourself or another. Murder, which is the taking of an innocent life, can never be justified.
That is doing your duty. Were ancient warlords vying for power and killing in war evil?
If they were waging war only to gain worldly power, then yeah, they were in the wrong. If they were doing it to protect their people or to stop a massive evil (such as the killing of children) then it would be morally justifiable.
What about the war in which Bush sent all the troops to Iraq due to bad intel about WMDs, or other wars in which troops and the public are told one thing about the reason for going, and the REAL reason may be something else entirely, like for natural resources or for some type of political gain?
Would this be acceptable killing to God, as the troops were just following orders, or would he expect the individual to recognize an ‘unjust’ war on their own? I ask this because Ive heard plenty of vets talk about being able to easily recognize the REAL reason they are being sent once they have been there for awhile.
you’re giving two very different examples here. If we sent troops to a nation to prevent them from developing WMD’s, that could be morally justifiable. It we sent troops to essentially steal natural resources, that wouldn’t be justifiable.
Would this be acceptable killing to God, as the troops were just following orders, or would he expect the individual to recognize an ‘unjust’ war on their own?
There are too many caveats in this for me to be able to comment on it. Ultimately, the morality of a military action will be based on more factors than we can know. We can make general statements, but in the end, each individual will be culpable for what they knew and their choices.
Also, a small side note; we found chemical weapons in Syria; so it’s entirely possible the intel was good and we just weren’t able to find them.
I was going to say. That comment of there being no weapons of Mass destruction was/is very questionable. Political opponents came up with that. The age of the weapons was in question. There was also a whole year there Bush gave them for some reason to truck those weapons to Syria. I don’t think the entire World’s intel was wrong. Those non existant weapons of Mass destruction were used to attempt to kill off Kurds. Re writing history is very easy to do with the Masses.
I don’t understand anyone’s motive, or agenda, to deny the holocaust.
The other issue I raised however may be quite genuinely held. It may be that only when faced with the act do they discover what is “on their heart”.
OH, you would be surprised if you did a google search on this topic…I was definitely shocked, there are more than a few that think this way, and they have very detailed information explaining it.
This topic came up on here not long ago, the OP was trying to convince people it did not happen, I watched his link and looked at some other sites, some of their arguments are interesting, but in the end, there is just way too many personal accounts, not to mention video, pictures, etc of what really happened, I cant believe how they can still think it was a conspiracy when there is so much proof??!