![Cultish delusions [1213x1351 - 182KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/qHDfBL.jpg){kind=link}
"...but whoever does not have, even what he does have shall be taken." [Matthew 13:12]
The issue is ascertaining why a person finds themselves in desperation. So often, we are the cause of our own despair.
This is why the gate to heaven is narrow because evil begets evil begets evil.
There is no question that a suffering person can behave morally. This idea that a desperate person must be immoral to survive is simply wrong.
I suppose the particular sort of desperation is what is at stake. Does the enslaved person have a moral pass to kill the person who took him as a slave?
Does a starving person have a right to harm others to acquire food?
In the first example, my answer is yes. In the second, it is no. The simple way to show this might be to demonstrate how the person's confounding was the result of improper actions at the start of the causal chain which lead to their situation of starving. We might also ask what other options exist to acquire food: charity, for example, which were available (but perhaps less convenient at the time) than killing someone to raid their fridge.
Wait about instead of physically harming someone for food, you steal their jewelry to pawn, for food?
How about you ask them for help and tell them you'll work it off by doing something useful for them?
I think by this point in the hypothetical, those attempts have been exhausted.
Besides, and don't want any useful work from me.
I remember hearing from a black woman that it is okay for slaves to rape their white slaveowner woman, and that it's not rape, because rape requires having the power advantage.
I said that rape is immoral.
Here you're encouraging the slave to kill the slavemaster.
There's something that allows us to say, okay, murder is okay, because it is a cessation of life. But rape is not okay, because it will induce suffering, or long-lasting suffering.
But would say, no no, rape is much better than murder. Because non-existence is an evil. But rape is just a pain, and living longer gives you more chance to convert to Catholicism.
So, were someone to fall into an industrial grinder and be dead in 5 seconds unless you turn it off by the switch, but an oracle tells you they will die in 15 minutes in excruciating pain if you turn off the switch, would advocate pressing the switch, because that's more time for them to convert to Catholicism.
Praise God!
But would say, no no, rape is much better than murder. Because non-existence is an evil. But rape is just a pain, and living longer gives you more chance to convert to Catholicism.
So, were someone to fall into an industrial grinder and be dead in 5 seconds unless you turn it off by the switch, but an oracle tells you they will die in 15 minutes in excruciating pain if you turn off the switch, would advocate pressing the switch, because that's more time for them to convert to Catholicism.
Don't put words in my mouth. I have elsewhere, and recently, defended the death penalty to you. So what makes you think I would always prioritize someone living longer?
I would never defend rape because it is always moral evil.
Death (contrary to murder) is a natural evil, but not necessarily a moral evil. Murder is a moral evil. Death is only necessarily a natural evil. So the death penalty is overall a good, because it is a restoration of the right order of justice; the natural evil of the punishment / death is attached to this good accidentally. Such a death is not a moral evil, and thus it is justified by the good of the justice being directed towards God.
So would you press the switch or not?
(post is archived)