The direction of public morality

wolfsbane

Our 'civilization' is getting crazier by the day:
Furor in Greece over pedophilia as a disability
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/09/3360945/furor-in-greece-over-pedophilia.html#storylink=cpy

'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/If-you-dont-take-a-job-as-a-prostitute-we-can-stop-your-benefits.html

******************************************************************
Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

tommy2bad

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.

Note the wording, and the Telegraph phrasing.
No where dose it say that the work offered was prostitution, brothels might need waitress too.

lmaopml

Wolfe, I agree our civilisation can at times seem bonkers; I think it was always this way though, or at least we always struggled collectively - perhaps it's polarising to a degree too.

The furore in Greece, sounds a little mad, especially in light of sw payments to those who are diabetic etc. How odd!!

- I do agree that Pedophilia is a sickness, but that doesn't negate that it is a sin too, perhaps the worst of all because it's against innocents - and should be punished with long long long prison sentences and because of it's nature the person never escapes the eye of justice and suspicion, or indeed the medical profession who can research and examine it, for better understanding. That's good. Granting benefits sounds a bit daft though...I wonder did the media get it right?

The legalisation of prostitution has opened a can of worms in Germany as far as employment law and state benefits are concerned for the unemployed - they have gone down the road of accepting that it is something that they need to legislate for, with the intention of protecting the women, and in one way by controlling it, and understanding it always happens. It will most especially open a can of worms if enough people persue it, or are turned away because they don't accept the job Seems odd too!

Also, they must weigh legislation properly, with what it means to separate it out from other professions or indeed not to, that it doesn't in fact, do the opposit of it's purpose to protect. I'm sure they must have thought of this and put in some kind of safe guards ??

We'll wait and see. It does sound a little mad though to 'ok' selling your body, the scars it must leave - I think God loves them dearly, and while the intentions are good to protect, I often wonder how that works out for the women in the very depths of their person. Holland is the great western trial too in relation to legalising prostitution.

As a Christian it's easy for me to say this is 'wrong' which of course any decent minded person would, but it's more difficult to say it's wrong and also protect people from selling their bodies for money - It's a quaint notion that seems to fall on deaf ears at times that there may just be a better solution than legalising it.

Zombrex

Some what unsurprisingly the Telegraph piece seems to be largely hypothetical what if nonsense, rather than real cases of this happening.

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

Notice at the end Deutsche Welle get an actual quote from the German labour office saying they are not pushing people into these areas due to it infringing on human rights, pretty much the exact opposite of what the suggesting in the Telegraph was.

The thread should be renamed The direction of modern journalism.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Some what unsurprisingly the Telegraph piece seems to be largely hypothetical what if nonsense, rather than real cases of this happening.

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

Notice at the end Deutsche Welle get an actual quote from the German labour office saying they are not pushing people into these areas due to it infringing on human rights, pretty much the exact opposite of what the suggesting in the Telegraph was.

The thread should be renamed The direction of modern journalism.

I tend to agree with you Zombrex, shockingly enough!

Still, the thread does highlight, I suppose, the legalisation of prostitution and all that the decision to do so entails..and what it means for society as a whole to recognise pedophilia as a disorder a sickness etc. and how to handle that, and balance justice with being humane - BIG topics methinks!

I think I need some shut eye though.

Manach

Perhaps the OP examples are at the extreme edge of what is happening, but they do illustrate a changing social environment. For example in the field of law, what is being emphasis is that morality is not part law. What matters is the black letter law, how well the State can implement the "Common Good", and how closely it aligns with international conventions signed by bureucrats.
This in itself is not a bad or evil thing. In normal circumstances the state promotes public welfare and make society a better place to live. However life is not static: so to quote scripture when the 7 years of famine do come the State has build up a framework of laws and powers which it use to ensure the survival of the guardians of the "Common Good" - ie the State. With the lack of a sense of public morality to oppose it, to say that the law is a moral entity and certain actions are wrong and always will be, then this will become an existential issue for the State. IMHO.

qrrgprgua

wolfsbane wrote: »

Our 'civilization' is getting crazier by the day:
Furor in Greece over pedophilia as a disability
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/09/3360945/furor-in-greece-over-pedophilia.html#storylink=cpy

'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/If-you-dont-take-a-job-as-a-prostitute-we-can-stop-your-benefits.html

Crazy Crazy...!!!

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

They people wonder why Religious groups oppose the secular agenda... Because at the end of the road is a world where the value of a woman is nothing more than to provide pleasure to the highest payer..!

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

Some what unsurprisingly the Telegraph piece seems to be largely hypothetical what if nonsense, rather than real cases of this happening.

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

Notice at the end Deutsche Welle get an actual quote from the German labour office saying they are not pushing people into these areas due to it infringing on human rights, pretty much the exact opposite of what the suggesting in the Telegraph was.

The thread should be renamed The direction of modern journalism.

Looking forward to you applying the same careful scrutiny someday to the various yarns spun about the Catholic Church by certain journalists.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

Theres an aristotle (eta: actually Socrates) quote where he said how the kids of his day were no longer obeying and serving their parents and how the breakdown of society was immenant.

I take all these warnings with a pinch if salt as liberal as myself.

The Quadratic Equation

RichieC wrote: »

Theres an aristotle quote where he said how the kids of his day were no longer obeying and serving their parents and how the breakdown of society was immenant.

I take all these warnings with a pinch if salt as liberal as myself.

Heard that yarn before, and the dark ages were worse.

Now, how exactly do you explain the decade upon decade increase in the murder and crime rate in Ireland ?

tommy2bad

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Heard that yarn before, and the dark ages were worse.

Now, how exactly do you explain the decade upon decade increase in the murder and crime rate in Ireland ?

We're getting better at it?
Wasn't their a guy came up with stats to prove we were getting less violent rather than more?

Delirium

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Heard that yarn before, and the dark ages were worse.

Now, how exactly do you explain the decade upon decade increase in the murder and crime rate in Ireland ?

Detection and reporting of crime has increased?

The Quadratic Equation

tommy2bad wrote: »

We're getting better at it?
Wasn't their a guy came up with stats to prove we were getting less violent rather than more?

koth wrote: »

Detection and reporting of crime has increased?

A single murder in the 50's or 60's was rare, and made big news, now its just a weekly regular non event like the weather and sports results.

Ireland has the highest homicide rate among 10 to 29-year-old men in western Europe, according to a new report from the World Health Organisation.

The study looked at homicides between 2004 and 2006.

Homicide includes murder, manslaughter and unlawful killing.

The report also says Ireland had the second highest number of knife homicides among men.

Ireland ranked 18th overall in the study, which examined 45 countries, including Russia.

Ireland was in 29th place for homicides among young women, according to the report and 26th for knife homicides.

On RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Joan Deane of Advocates for Victims of Homicide said it was clearly a very shocking report.

She said the findings highlighted the 'underlying violence' in younger people in Ireland, which needs to be tackled.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0922/crime.html

tommy2bad

So we are getting better at it!
Anyway it's still illegal so even if I'm offered a job as hitman I won't have my dole cut for turning the offer down.

The Quadratic Equation

tommy2bad wrote: »

So we are getting better at it!

I'm sure the victims and families would find that line witty, there but for the grace of God and all that . . . .

tommy2bad

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I'm sure the victims and families would find that line witty, there but for the grace of God and all that . . . .

Yeah we need a sarcasm smiley.

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

Some what unsurprisingly the Telegraph piece seems to be largely hypothetical what if nonsense, rather than real cases of this happening.

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

Notice at the end Deutsche Welle get an actual quote from the German labour office saying they are not pushing people into these areas due to it infringing on human rights, pretty much the exact opposite of what the suggesting in the Telegraph was.

The thread should be renamed The direction of modern journalism.

Thank you for the nuancing, Zombrex. Yes, it appears the German paper presented it as a technical possibility rather than an actual occurrence.

But, since brothels are now legal, the state of one's human right not to work in them - as prostitute or waiter - is up to challenge. Do those who regard abortion as murder have the right to refuse a job as a receptionist in an abortion clinic? Or those who regard the abuse of alcohol as a sin have the right to refuse a job as a bartender?

Any thoughts on the paedophile piece?

********************************************************************
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

Peregrinus

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you for the nuancing, Zombrex. Yes, it appears the German paper presented it as a technical possibility rather than an actual occurrence.

But, since brothels are now legal, the state of one's human right not to work in them - as prostitute or waiter - is up to challenge. Do those who regard abortion as murder have the right to refuse a job as a receptionist in an abortion clinic? Or those who regard the abuse of alcohol as a sin have the right to refuse a job as a bartender?

Aren’t we always going to have some variation on this problem?

If the state is going to provide unemployment assistance - and I think it should - then we have to have some shared concept of what it is to be “unemployed”, and that has to include some notions of when it’s reasonable to refuse a job offer and claim benefits instead, and when it isn’t.

I can see an argument that nobody should be compelled to accept employment which is offensive to their conscience. But, of course, strictly speaking, we are not talking about compelling people to accept job offers; we are talking about paying them to turn down job offers. For many people, in practice, the difference is a small one, but if you demand unemployment benefits when you refuse to work in a particular job, to an extent you are imposing your conscience on me; I have to pay (through my taxes) because the job is offensive to your conscience. Don’t I (and taxpayers at large) get any say in the decision?

I think most people would agree that nobody should have their benefits cut off for refusing to work as a prostitute, or refusing to take any job in a brothel. But how far can you extend this? If I consider alcohol abuse to be a great social evil and selling alcohol to be socially harmful and morally objectionable, can I decline a job in a bar and claim benefits instead? Can I decline a job of any kind in Guinness’s brewery, even if my job doesn’t involve the production of beer? Can I refuse to take a job of any kind in any business run by Diageo plc, the ultimate owners of Guinness’s (and many other brands and companies)? And you could raise similar questions with respect to people who have ethical objections to the arms industry, or the oil industry.

And it’s not impossible to imagine people holding apparently inconsistent positions here. We can imagine somebody who would enthusiastically support the right of a worker to turn down a job in a brothel and affirmed their right to receive benefits, but who would denounce as unpatriotic and unworthy of support a worker who turned down a job in a defence contractors.

It’s not clear that there’s a neat solution to this. Realistically, I think if you are claiming benefit you are invoking a relationship between you and the community at large, and you have to accept that in that relationship their conscientious judgments have a certain weight as well as yours. If you claim benefit because you have declined work through a conscientious objection, then your conscientious stand needs to be one which they are willing to support, even if they don’t necessarily share it.

We can imagine a compromise position. In most unemployment systems, you are only expected to take jobs which are suited to your qualifications, training, etc. So if you are, say, an accountant you won’t have your benefits cut off for refusing to take a job as a car park attendant.

But, perhaps, if you turn down a suitable job because you have a conscientious objection, it’s reasonable to expect you to be less picky in other regards, and you should then be willing to take the less suitable job. After all, if your conscience does not demand sacrifices from you (like taking a lower-status job), why should it demand sacrifices from others (like paying you a wage when you could, if you chose, take a job for which you are qualified)?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Any thoughts on the paedophile piece?

My thoughts, to be honest, are that this is poor journalism. It basically relays, in some detail, the views of someone who objects to a recent change in the system. But I look in vain for any indication that the journalist has sought out, and attempted to report on, other perspectives. Why is this (apparently very surprising) change being made? What is it supposed to achieve? Why does anybody think it’s a good idea? I would be slow to make a judgment about the change being made here until I had an opportunity to hear, and consider, an explanation and defence of the change.

PDN

At the present time, in Western Society, morality seems to be on a downward path. But then I look at other periods of history and see things used to be worse. In Victorian London, for example, a man could have sex with a 13 year-old girl in a brothel, and no action could be taken because no law was being broken!

So I don't see this as society going in one irreversable direction. In a generation or two moral standards might be much higher.

Doctor DooM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Heard that yarn before, and the dark ages were worse.

Now, how exactly do you explain the decade upon decade increase in the murder and crime rate in Ireland ?

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/crimejustice/current/crimeandvictimisation_qnhs2010.pdf

This decade seems to be gradually getting better, anyway. I would dare put forward the effect of churnalism and increased awareness due to teh interwebs meaning every little horrible thing that happens, we hear about.

Although surely, in a religious forum, crime cannot be directly equated with morality- if Christianity demanded something illegal of you, would doing it be immoral?

EDIT: I looked up the homicide statistics too, there's bee a very sharp drop from the mid naughties but it's actually stabilised around 89 per annum. Interesting reading!

homer911

wolfsbane wrote: »

Or those who regard the abuse of alcohol as a sin have the right to refuse a job as a bartender?

A lot of people (not just Christians) would have issues working for an addiction associated business such as gambling, alcohol or tobacco.

mauricebferris

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Crazy Crazy...!!!



They people wonder why Religious groups oppose the secular agenda... Because at the end of the road is a world where the value of a woman is nothing more than to provide pleasure to the highest payer..!

Do you have any idea why secularists oppose the religious agenda?

I dont know anyone who expects religious groups to adopt secular agenda's, and they are free to adopt any agends they choose. It's a little ironic that some religiouis groups, which have been responsible for torture, rape, and conspired to subvert the law, should somehow think they have the moral high ground to "oppose" someone else's agenda.

wolfsbane

Peregrinus said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Thank you for the nuancing, Zombrex. Yes, it appears the German paper presented it as a technical possibility rather than an actual occurrence.

But, since brothels are now legal, the state of one's human right not to work in them - as prostitute or waiter - is up to challenge. Do those who regard abortion as murder have the right to refuse a job as a receptionist in an abortion clinic? Or those who regard the abuse of alcohol as a sin have the right to refuse a job as a bartender?
Aren’t we always going to have some variation on this problem?

If the state is going to provide unemployment assistance - and I think it should - then we have to have some shared concept of what it is to be “unemployed”, and that has to include some notions of when it’s reasonable to refuse a job offer and claim benefits instead, and when it isn’t.

I can see an argument that nobody should be compelled to accept employment which is offensive to their conscience. But, of course, strictly speaking, we are not talking about compelling people to accept job offers; we are talking about paying them to turn down job offers. For many people, in practice, the difference is a small one, but if you demand unemployment benefits when you refuse to work in a particular job, to an extent you are imposing your conscience on me; I have to pay (through my taxes) because the job is offensive to your conscience. Don’t I (and taxpayers at large) get any say in the decision?

I think most people would agree that nobody should have their benefits cut off for refusing to work as a prostitute, or refusing to take any job in a brothel. But how far can you extend this? If I consider alcohol abuse to be a great social evil and selling alcohol to be socially harmful and morally objectionable, can I decline a job in a bar and claim benefits instead? Can I decline a job of any kind in Guinness’s brewery, even if my job doesn’t involve the production of beer? Can I refuse to take a job of any kind in any business run by Diageo plc, the ultimate owners of Guinness’s (and many other brands and companies)? And you could raise similar questions with respect to people who have ethical objections to the arms industry, or the oil industry.

I think any genuine case of conscience should be respected. And we must remember unemployment benefit is not charity, but contribution-based.

And it’s not impossible to imagine people holding apparently inconsistent positions here. We can imagine somebody who would enthusiastically support the right of a worker to turn down a job in a brothel and affirmed their right to receive benefits, but who would denounce as unpatriotic and unworthy of support a worker who turned down a job in a defence contractors.

They would indeed be very unsympathetic judges, demanding their conscience be respected while trampling on others.

It’s not clear that there’s a neat solution to this. Realistically, I think if you are claiming benefit you are invoking a relationship between you and the community at large, and you have to accept that in that relationship their conscientious judgments have a certain weight as well as yours. If you claim benefit because you have declined work through a conscientious objection, then your conscientious stand needs to be one which they are willing to support, even if they don’t necessarily share it.

We can imagine a compromise position. In most unemployment systems, you are only expected to take jobs which are suited to your qualifications, training, etc. So if you are, say, an accountant you won’t have your benefits cut off for refusing to take a job as a car park attendant.

But, perhaps, if you turn down a suitable job because you have a conscientious objection, it’s reasonable to expect you to be less picky in other regards, and you should then be willing to take the less suitable job. After all, if your conscience does not demand sacrifices from you (like taking a lower-status job), why should it demand sacrifices from others (like paying you a wage when you could, if you chose, take a job for which you are qualified)?

Yes, that seems a fair compromise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Any thoughts on the paedophile piece?
My thoughts, to be honest, are that this is poor journalism. It basically relays, in some detail, the views of someone who objects to a recent change in the system. But I look in vain for any indication that the journalist has sought out, and attempted to report on, other perspectives. Why is this (apparently very surprising) change being made? What is it supposed to achieve? Why does anybody think it’s a good idea? I would be slow to make a judgment about the change being made here until I had an opportunity to hear, and consider, an explanation and defence of the change.

OK, deeper investigation would be needed if we are going to present a water-tight case against it.

But the Associated Press article has given some basic facts, with the sources named. Do we dismiss the daily news until we prove it has actually happened? Surely we assume the main details are correct, until we have credible testimony to the contrary?


*********************************************************************
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

Peregrinus

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, deeper investigation would be needed if we are going to present a water-tight case against it [the Greek rules about disability compensation for paedophiles].

But the Associated Press article has given some basic facts, with the sources named. Do we dismiss the daily news until we prove it has actually happened? Surely we assume the main details are correct, until we have credible testimony to the contrary?

Call me a crusty old cynic, but I think newspaper reports need to be read critically.

This report quotes only one source, and quotes him extensively. It reads to me exactly like a report constructed entirely on the basis of a press release/interview/briefing from a single source, with an interest to advance. Journalists are as human as everybody else; they have column inches to fill and deadlines to meet, and if you give them what amounts to pre-written copy it is surprisingly (and alarmingly) easy to get them to run it. I’ve done this myself (from the highest motives, naturally, and with the best of intentions, and with nothing in my mind but the public good. Still, they ran what I gave them.)

Perhaps if the journalist had had more time before his deadline, he would have researched this story more fully, spoken to people with other perspectives, and addressed some fairly obvious questions (like “why the hell would anyone think this was a good idea?”). But he didn’t.

So, having read the article he did write, all I’m really sure about is that I know what the Greek Disability Federation wants me to think. Are they right to want me to think that? Perhaps they are, but I don’t know that yet.

Finally, I note that this story ran in the Daily Telegraph, and that it feeds directly into, and reinforces, the editorial stance of that newspaper (politically and socially conservative, Eurosceptic, young people these days, all going to hell in a handbasket, I blame the parents). That doesn’t mean its untrue or inaccurate, but it does mean that I’d like to hear another voice before I rush to judgment.

Peregrinus

homer911 wrote: »

A lot of people (not just Christians) would have issues working for an addiction associated business such as gambling, alcohol or tobacco.

Sure. And I don't think we can argue that Christians should have their conscientious objections accommodated, but that others should not.

phurryphace

o its goin down alright

Peregrinus

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Although surely, in a religious forum, crime cannot be directly equated with morality- if Christianity demanded something illegal of you, would doing it be immoral?

Very important point. And not just for the reason given.

In this thread we are discussing whether it is moral to “force” someone to work in a brothel by withholding unemployment benefit if she declines the offer of a job there.

But reflect that, a little over a hundred years ago, there was no unemployment benefit. Presumably many more people were compelled by economic necessity to accept work in brothels, or similarly distasteful or immoral work; they were “forced” into it in exactly the way that this woman would be “forced” into it, if her benefit were withheld.

In other words, something which is exceptional and unlikely is regarded as an indicator of poor public morality today, simply because it is even raised as a theoretical possibility. But that very thing was absolutely routine, standard and normal a hundred years ago. It happened every day, and I suspect did not trouble the consciences of most middle-class and prosperous Christians.

It seems to me that in the last century we have seen a huge growth in effective solidarity - not just unemployment assistance but social welfare of every kind, public healthcare, free secondary education, etc, etc.

This all seems to me to point to a recognition and practical acceptance by society of important moral values to do with solidarity, justice and other virtues that might be categorized as “social”. This can’t be left out of an assessment of whether public morality has improved or declined over time. It can’t be just a question of looking at the murder rate.

tommy2bad

This can’t be left out of an assessment of whether public morality has improved or declined over time.

Dead on, public morality is getting better in as much as we now recognize the responsibility of society to everyone in that society. Not perfect yet but good to see that Tatchers 'no such thing as society' has been rejected.
Personal morality is becoming more individualistic and this is a cause for outrage among the socially conservative class hence the Torygraph piece.

homer911

Interesting slant on this in Glasgow...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16596605

wolfsbane

Peregrinus wrote: »

Very important point. And not just for the reason given.

In this thread we are discussing whether it is moral to “force” someone to work in a brothel by withholding unemployment benefit if she declines the offer of a job there.

But reflect that, a little over a hundred years ago, there was no unemployment benefit. Presumably many more people were compelled by economic necessity to accept work in brothels, or similarly distasteful or immoral work; they were “forced” into it in exactly the way that this woman would be “forced” into it, if her benefit were withheld.

In other words, something which is exceptional and unlikely is regarded as an indicator of poor public morality today, simply because it is even raised as a theoretical possibility. But that very thing was absolutely routine, standard and normal a hundred years ago. It happened every day, and I suspect did not trouble the consciences of most middle-class and prosperous Christians.

It seems to me that in the last century we have seen a huge growth in effective solidarity - not just unemployment assistance but social welfare of every kind, public healthcare, free secondary education, etc, etc.

This all seems to me to point to a recognition and practical acceptance by society of important moral values to do with solidarity, justice and other virtues that might be categorized as “social”. This can’t be left out of an assessment of whether public morality has improved or declined over time. It can’t be just a question of looking at the murder rate.

I think the downgrade of public morality is notable today for its commissions rather than omissions. And commissions require active consent with the sin, something I think is more culpable than the sin of pretending we don't see a need. Both are wicked, but surely active sin is the greater?

*********************************************************************
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

tommy2bad

I think the downgrade of public morality is notable today for its commissions rather than omissions.

Omissions I get, but commissions?
What do you mean by this?

Peregrinus

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think the downgrade of public morality is notable today for its commissions rather than omissions. And commissions require active consent with the sin, something I think is more culpable than the sin of pretending we don't see a need. Both are wicked, but surely active sin is the greater?

You’ll need to persuade me, I’m afraid. I’m not sure that omission/commission is a hard-and-fast distinction here. If the woman mentioned in the original post had been forced to take up a job in brothel when her benefit was withdrawn, would we say that this was a sin of commission (“we withdrew her benefit” or “we decided not to pay her a benefit”) or a sin of omission (“we didn’t pay her a benefit”). And would the answer depend on whether she was in receipt of a benefit but lost it when she got the job offer, or she applied for a benefit but never got it because the job offer was already there? And, regardless of what the answer was, why would it affect the gravity of our sin?

There’s notion in Catholic moral theology (and not just there, I’m sure) of “proximate co-operation” in evil.

Consider abortion - a controversial topic, I know, but the idea of proximate co-operation comes up a lot in discourse on this topic. Take it for granted for the purposes of this argument that abortion is wrong. (I know that’s debatable but, if it’s to be be debated, please, let that be in a different thread.)

Right. Given that starting point, and assuming free will, full knowledge, etc:

1. It’s wrong for a doctor to perform an abortion.

2. It’s wrong for a woman to ask for, or consent to, an abortion.

3. It’s wrong for her partner (say) to pay for the abortion, or to give her money to pay for it.

But:

4. If a law is proposed to outlaw abortion, is it wrong for a legislator not to support that law? Does the answer depend on whether that’s because he favours abortion, or because he thinks the law is unenforceable, or that it’s not strong enough?

5. If a law is not proposed to outlaw abortion, is it wrong for a legislator not to propose one? Again, does the answer depend on why he doesn’t propose one?

6. If a voter thinks the legislator has acted or will act wrongly in this regard, is it wrong for the voter to vote for the legislator?

And

7. Is it wrong for the electricity company to provide electric power to the premises of the abortion provider? He couldn’t carry out the abortions without electric power. On the other hand, he does other things at the same premises, many of them good, and he couldn’t do those things without power either.

8. The power company has to supply power to the premises, because the law requires them to supply power to any premises that wants it, so long as the owner is willing and able to pay. Has a legislator who proposed or voted for that law acted wrongly?

At least one tradition within Catholic moral theology would answer the question by looking at how “proximate” each actor was to the wrong act (the abortion). The closer you are, the more morally guilty your co-operation makes you. But you do reach a point where you are sufficiently remote from the wrong act that, even though we can established a “chain of causation” from what you do all the way down to the act, you’re not guilty. (The power company is probably in this position, as is the legislator who passed a law requiring power to be supplied to all.)

And your guilt will also depend on your intention. Legislating for abortions because you favour abortions is one thing; legislating for abortions because you think a law banning abortions is unenforceable, or could be enforced only at too high a cost in terms of liberty and solidarity, is not necessarily the same thing.

But the answer rarely depends on whether your role was active or passive. Killing a proposed law by voting against it, and killing a proposed law by allowing it to expire without bringing it to a vote, are not morally different, as far as I can see.

homer911

Peregrinus wrote: »

7. Is it wrong for the electricity company to provide electric power to the premises of the abortion provider? He couldn’t carry out the abortions without electric power. On the other hand, he does other things at the same premises, many of them good, and he couldn’t do those things without power either.

I work for a non-Irish Bank (shock horror), but its interesting how "morality" differs from country to country

It has been remarked that the parent bank would have no problem lending money to a duck farmer for the force feeding of birds for Foi Gras (?), but would have a problem lending money to a book-maker for the expansion of their business. In Ireland it would be more likely to be the other way around - Go figure!

wolfsbane

Peregrinus wrote: »

You’ll need to persuade me, I’m afraid. I’m not sure that omission/commission is a hard-and-fast distinction here. If the woman mentioned in the original post had been forced to take up a job in brothel when her benefit was withdrawn, would we say that this was a sin of commission (“we withdrew her benefit” or “we decided not to pay her a benefit”) or a sin of omission (“we didn’t pay her a benefit”). And would the answer depend on whether she was in receipt of a benefit but lost it when she got the job offer, or she applied for a benefit but never got it because the job offer was already there? And, regardless of what the answer was, why would it affect the gravity of our sin?

There’s notion in Catholic moral theology (and not just there, I’m sure) of “proximate co-operation” in evil.

Consider abortion - a controversial topic, I know, but the idea of proximate co-operation comes up a lot in discourse on this topic. Take it for granted for the purposes of this argument that abortion is wrong. (I know that’s debatable but, if it’s to be be debated, please, let that be in a different thread.)

Right. Given that starting point, and assuming free will, full knowledge, etc:

1. It’s wrong for a doctor to perform an abortion.

2. It’s wrong for a woman to ask for, or consent to, an abortion.

3. It’s wrong for her partner (say) to pay for the abortion, or to give her money to pay for it.

But:

4. If a law is proposed to outlaw abortion, is it wrong for a legislator not to support that law? Does the answer depend on whether that’s because he favours abortion, or because he thinks the law is unenforceable, or that it’s not strong enough?

5. If a law is not proposed to outlaw abortion, is it wrong for a legislator not to propose one? Again, does the answer depend on why he doesn’t propose one?

6. If a voter thinks the legislator has acted or will act wrongly in this regard, is it wrong for the voter to vote for the legislator?

And

7. Is it wrong for the electricity company to provide electric power to the premises of the abortion provider? He couldn’t carry out the abortions without electric power. On the other hand, he does other things at the same premises, many of them good, and he couldn’t do those things without power either.

8. The power company has to supply power to the premises, because the law requires them to supply power to any premises that wants it, so long as the owner is willing and able to pay. Has a legislator who proposed or voted for that law acted wrongly?

At least one tradition within Catholic moral theology would answer the question by looking at how “proximate” each actor was to the wrong act (the abortion). The closer you are, the more morally guilty your co-operation makes you. But you do reach a point where you are sufficiently remote from the wrong act that, even though we can established a “chain of causation” from what you do all the way down to the act, you’re not guilty. (The power company is probably in this position, as is the legislator who passed a law requiring power to be supplied to all.)

And your guilt will also depend on your intention. Legislating for abortions because you favour abortions is one thing; legislating for abortions because you think a law banning abortions is unenforceable, or could be enforced only at too high a cost in terms of liberty and solidarity, is not necessarily the same thing.

But the answer rarely depends on whether your role was active or passive. Killing a proposed law by voting against it, and killing a proposed law by allowing it to expire without bringing it to a vote, are not morally different, as far as I can see.

I think the Catholic proximate idea is valid. As far as lies in us, we ought to act righteously. Our degree of guilt in failing to do so will be commensurate with our power. But we are not God either - we cannot remove ourselves from this world and so we must have some interaction with the lives of sinners and their sin. If I don't supply an adulterer with his groceries, will that really stop his sin? But if I refuse to mind his kids while he goes next door to lie with his neighbour's wife, that is directly related to the case.

Anyway, the commission in the posted cases is that of the legislators. The omission would be that of any legislators who disagreed but did not object to the measure.

*********************************************************************
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Omissions I get, but commissions?
What do you mean by this?

Things one does, rather than things one does not do. The sin of passing legislation for an evil act, in distinction from the sin of allowing the legislation to be passed.

*********************************************************************
Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

tommy2bad

The sin of passing legislation for an evil act,

I think it might be more 'unintended consequences' than legislating for evil.
Nothing a small amendment wouldn't fix, but I think a lot would be in the interpretation of the law rather than the intention of the law which throws it back on someones intentional, er... intent. Not necessarily the maker of the law.
In this case no one legislated for evil, rather they tried to mitigate an evil- sex trafficking and wound up creating a situation that could cause an evil. I'm sure no one intended this to happen and I would wonder what would be the real intention of someone forcing this conclusion .

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

I think it might be more 'unintended consequences' than legislating for evil.
Nothing a small amendment wouldn't fix, but I think a lot would be in the interpretation of the law rather than the intention of the law which throws it back on someones intentional, er... intent. Not necessarily the maker of the law.
In this case no one legislated for evil, rather they tried to mitigate an evil- sex trafficking and wound up creating a situation that could cause an evil. I'm sure no one intended this to happen and I would wonder what would be the real intention of someone forcing this conclusion .

Yes, I take your point. Legalising prostitution is not the issue - the issue is what flows from that if cases of conscience are not respected regarding prostitution. Negligence rather than positive intent for evil. Thanks.