A Summary of the Question II of DE MALO by Thomas Aquinas

First Article: Is an Act Involved in Every Sin?

There are two opinions about this matter. First, there is an act in every sin, even in sin of omission. And the second, there can be a sin even without an act of the will. And each opinion is true in some respect.

1. From the essence of sin

If we consider what is required for there to be sin, as belonging to the essence of sin, then an act is not required for a sin of omission; rather, the sin of omission consists of the very desistance from action. For example, if a doctor should administer medicine according to the rules of medical practice, and the sick person should fail to be cured, whether because the sick person has an incurable disease, or because the sick person does something adverse to the person's health, the doctor is indeed not at fault even though he fails to achieve the end. And conversely, if the doctor were to achieve the end but were to deviate from the rules of medical practice, we would nonetheless say that the doctor erred. And it is evident from this that it belongs more to the nature of fault to disregard a rule of action than even to fail to attain the end of the action. Therefore, it belongs intrinsically to the nature of fault, whether in nature or human skills or moral matters, to be contrary to a rule of action.

This rule of action includes particular negative and affirmative orders that are contained in the natural power of reason and in the divine law, which ought to govern our actions. And so as we impute acting as sin in that action is contrary to a negative order of the law, so also we impute non acting itself as sin in that non action is contrary to an affirmative order of the law.

Therefore, there can be a sin for which an act belonging to the essence of sin is not required. (The second opinion)

2. From the cause of sin

If we consider what is required for sin regarding the cause of sin, then an act needs to be required for any sin, even one of omission. There needs to be a cause for a person not doing what the person should do.

And if the cause was totally extrinsic, such an omission does not have the nature of sin. We only impute omission as sin when it has an intrinsic voluntary cause, not an intrinsic cause of any kind. For if an intrinsic involuntary cause, for example, fever, were to prevent a person from doing what the person should do, the argument would be the same as in the case of an extrinsic cause doing so. Therefore, for the omission of a duty to be a sin, it is required that a voluntary act cause the omission.

But the will indeed sometimes causes something intrinsically and sometimes accidentally. The will indeed causes intrinsically when it intentionally acts to produce such an effect (e.g., if one seeking to find treasure, should find some in the course of digging). The will causes accidentally when the effect is outside one's intention (e.g., if one wanting to dig a grave should find treasure). Therefore, a voluntary act is sometimes the intrinsic cause of omitting a duty but not in such a way that the will is directly borne to the omission. This is because nonbeing and evil are outside one's intention and one's power to will, and the object of the will is being and good. Rather, the will is indirectly borne to something positive when one foresees the resulting omission. For example, one wills to play games, knowing that doing so means not going to church, and we say that a thief, not shrinking from the deformity of injustice, wants money. And a voluntary act is sometimes the accidental cause of omitting a duty, as when a person occupied in some activity does not recall something that the person is obliged to do. And it makes no difference in this regard whether the voluntary act that intrinsically or accidentally causes the omission is simultaneous with the omission itself or even precedes it. Therefore, the first opinion is true in this respect, that a voluntary act needs to cause the omission of a duty for the omission to be sinful.

Read More

Pornography: A Mistake Of Understanding The Human Body

Pornography is a common phenomenon in our society. Many who like to start from the young, teenagers, even the old. It's a fairly universal phenomenon in the world. We are asked to respond wisely.

In this paper, I will argue that pornography can exist and spread, because we wrongly think about the meaning of the body. It comes from a mistaken concept of human body. Then, I will explain that even we know that pornography is from a mistaken thinking about the human body, yet we still can not let go of the tendency to see pornography, because it has become a habit and even some get into addiction. So what is needed is the ability to interpret the habit. However, this paper is not about the addiction to pornography.

The Human Body

The human body is something very complicated. It has a complex biological function, ranging from the respiratory system, nerves, digestive system, and so on. With his body man can live and develop himself. With his body man can achieve self-actualization completely, and feel happy.

In everyday life, we see people unable to care for their bodies. They are immersed in the quest for pleasure that damages the body. With such a pattern of life, they also show wrong thinking about the body. They regard the body as just a tool to achieve mere self-mastery, which in the end destroys the only body they have.

So it is very important for us to take care of the body. The trick is to maintain health, such as not smoking, eating foods with balanced nutrition, not too tired in work / study, and exercise sufficiently. Without a healthy body, then we will not be able to develop ourselves completely. Nor will we ever be happy.

But the human body is not just physical. The human body has a higher dimension, the metaphysical dimension. This dimension is not visible to the eye, but affects human behavior. This dimension is often forgotten, when people talk about humans and life.

In philosophical anthropology, this metaphysical dimension is discussed in depth. There are several mentioned. The first is the body as a human tool to experience this world. This means the body is a tool for human beings to touch and connect with the world.

With the body the man acted. With the his body, the man involved with other human beings. With the body man involved in the re-creation of the universe. Human beings exist with their bodies. In the process, he becomes himself as a whole.

The human body is a symbol of freedom. Animal bodies have been made, since they were born. The functions of his organs are self-evident. This does not happen in human beings.

From the beginning, the human body has always been in common. The human body can be formed according to the choice that it has. If you want to be an artist, you can beautify your body. If you want to be an athlete, you can also train your body by having regular exercises. The body is the symbol of human freedom.

The human body is also a symbol of property. That means man has properties by his body. He has a shirt, a house, a book, and it can be meaningful, because he has a body. The body is the symbol of human authority over oneself and his world.

The body is a symbol of the human ability to achieve holiness. Everyone wants to feel close to his God. For that he believed and prayed according to his faith. In addition, people also do some kinds of mortification, such us fasting, to achieve sanctity and peace of the soul.

The human body is a tool for attaining sanctity. Not only that the body is a symbol of the man's ability to truly achieve the immortality of the soul. By organizing the impulses of his body, man become noble beings. It shows a much higher dignity than animals or plants.

The Habit from a Mistaken Concept

So the body not only has a physical dimension, but also metaphysical dimension. The human body is a symbol for the interconnection of man with the world, his freedom, his authority to possess, and the ability to achieve holiness. One can get stuck into a pornographic space, because he does not understand this various dimensions of this body. It can also be said that pornography is a sign of error thinking about the human body, a misconception about the human body.

Yet why do so many people, and maybe even us, find it so difficult to take them off?

In this paper, as I wrote earlier, I want to argue, that pornography is difficult to avoid, because of the habits of those who are attracted to it. So the problem is not just changing the way people think about the body, which is the main object of pornography, but make sense of the habit. How?

Briefly said, pornography is a display given to people, and aims to create sexual fantasies, or erotic satisfaction. Sexual fantasies and erotic satisfaction are natural. However, pornography can take place not only because of the appearance of objects alone, but also because the mind of the person who saw it.

In short, pornography becomes possible, not only because there are trigger objects, such as pictures or sounds, but especially because of the mistake of thinking people who perceive it. The error of thinking is repeated, and becomes part of the habit. As a result, thinking errors are difficult to change. The challenge then is how to cutoff those existing habits?

Habit is something that is spontaneously done, often unwittingly, but it keeps repeating itself in everyday life. The form can range from how you do with your hands while speaking to others, to masturbation while watching the look of pornography. Habits are so powerful in human behavior. Even Aristotle once declared, that habit is the greatest power in the world.

Pornography can not disappear, because people used to consume it. Even the love of pornography becomes an inherent habit that is so powerful, irreversibly. Many people are trapped in it. Pornography becomes spontaneous and occurs outside the consciousness of the people who do it.

If the power of habit is so great, how can we escape from it? It seems that there is no way out of the habit. Once a habit is formed it will forever exist. The important thing is that we realize that we are living in a habit that can not be eliminated. Awareness keeps us away from the habit, but never eliminates it entirely.

So our strength needs to be focused on creating new, more profitable habits. In the sense of interest in pornography may never disappear completely. But its presence can be offset by the birth of new habits, such as habit of writing, sports, reading, or do art. In this sense, new habits, which are considered better, can compensate for the less profitable old habits.

Normality in life does not mean that people completely eliminate the bad habits of their lives. Normality means people enter into a harmony situation, where good and bad habits merge, and balance each other. Self-perfection is not a flawless self, but a beautiful and harmonious self, even though there are some defects. As a habit, pornography still can not be completely cutoff, but it can be balanced in harmony with other better habits.

Conclusion

Pornography's locales are body, mind, and habit. It was there due to a mistaken thought on the human body. The complexity and the dignity of human body is demeaned as a mere satisfying sexual pleasure. It is sustainable, when pornography comes into a habit.

If someone does like pornography, it happens because he does not understand the complexity of the human body. Perhaps he was not taught human philosophy at his school. But he can balance that habit with other more creative and productive habits. That way, his life could be more balanced.

Read More

Polish and Indonesian Traditions of Remembering the Dead

The desire to remember the dead has been part of our life and culture for countless generations. These special days, dedicated to the remembrance and honoring those who have come before us, was established by the church in the early days of Christianity. The first day was the Feast of All Saints celebrated on Nov. 1st that venerated all the martyrs and saints of the church. Almost 100 years later in 998, St. Odillo, a Benedictine monk at Cluny ordered the commemoration of all the faithful departed to be held annually in the monasteries of his congregation. The celebration of All Souls Day on Nov. 2 spread among the Benedictines, to other religious houses and adopted throughout the Christian world, including Poland and Indonesia.

In this paper I shall give an observation on how Polish people celebrate this All Soul's Day and compare it with the Indonesian custom and tradition. Notice that Catholicism is dominant in Poland but Islam is dominant in Indonesia, I will give also how this tradition of honoring the dead can be found in Christians as long as in Muslims in Indonesia. Than, I conclude that this celebration has a pagan root but it has become more and more into religion significance.  

1. Polish Tradition

In Polish tradition, especially the folk one, both these holidays, All Saints’ Day in particular, are devoted to praying for the souls of the dead. In this sense they are a continuation of the ceremonies for the dead performed by our ancestors.

On All Saints’ Day all Polish cemeteries are visited by great numbers of people who come to pray over the graves for their close relatives. Candles are lit on every grave and flowers are put on them. The custom requires to burn candles, lay flowers on evergreen branches also on old, unattended and forgotten graves, visited by no one.

It was believed in Poland that on the night from November 1st to 2nd shadows of the dead walk from cemetery to church to the night service celebrated for them by the ghost of the dead provost.
 
On those days church beggars who prayed under the church and churchyard wall were given lavish hands-outs, for it was thought a deceased ancestor might take the shape of a beggar. Till the early 20 th century on All Saints’ Eve bread was baked, broad beans were cooked and in the eastern territories a funeral dish called kutia was prepared. All that along with vodka was left on the table for the night for the guests from other world.

On cemeteries and at the crossroads great fires were lit, especially on the graves of those who committed suicide, once buried outside cemeteries.

Today all these practices and offerings have been replaced by church services and prayers, “callings” by name of the dead in whose intentions the prayers are made, candles and flowers. However, the old and the present ceremonies to the dead souls have one motivation in common: they express lasting memory of all the deceased as well as gratitude and respect for them.

All Saints’ Day and All Souls’ Day are also days of national remembrance. Candles burn on the Tomb of Unknown Soldier, graves and insurgents, at military quarters of cemeteries, on countless anonymous soldiers’ graves all over fields and forests in Poland, on execution sites and commemorative tablets to soldiers killed at the fronts of all wars as well as on graves of civilians executed during those wars.

Candles burn also on graves of people of special merits for Poland and its culture. In all these sites of martyrdom and national memories guards of honor are set up.

They signify not only the imperishable memory but also the conviction that not everything dies in us.  

2. Indonesian Tradition

Before the coming of Christianity, there is Sadranan and Ruwahan in the ancient Indonesian people. The essence of the ceremony or activities of Sadranan and / or Ruwahan involves cleaning the tombs, fixing them, sending prayers to the ancestral spirits, sowing flowers, and also with the festivities.

Ruwahan in Javanese culture is often likened to Nyadran or Sadranan. Sadran himself allegedly derived from the term "sradda", which is a pilgrimage ceremony grave commonly done by Hindus in the past. Such is the meaning of the term sradda in Sanskrit. The term sradda has a similar meaning in the Kawi language which means the anniversary of the death of a person. Sradda itself is implemented in two stages of ritual, namely the form of chanting prayers and pujian-praise that accompanied by musical instrument.

Ancient Javanese believed that ancestors who had died, actually still exist and affect the lives of children or grandchildren or descendants. Therefore, they are very concerned about the time or time, date and date of the death of the ancestors. In those times, those who are still alive are required to make offerings in the form of cakes, drinks, or deceased favorites. Furthermore, the offerings were placed on the table, neatly arranged, given caman flowers, and lighting the form of lights

'Sradha' is a tradition initiated by Queen Tribuana Tunggadewi, the third king of Majapahit. At that time Kanjeng Ratu wanted to pray to the mother of Queen Gayatri, and the spirit of her ancestors who had been taboo in Jabo Temple. For that purpose prepared a variety of serving to be donated to the gods. After the death of Queen Tribuana Tunggadewi, this tradition was continued also by King Hayam Wuruk.

During the spreading of Islam by Wali Songo, the tradition was then adopted into a nyadran ceremony as it aims to pray for parents in the afterlife. Therefore, it is the duty of children and grandchildren to always pray for the spirits of their deceased ancestors.

3. Christian Influence

The practice of praying in one's tomb on the one hand contains popular religious features because such a practice is rooted in the Javanese tradition of "nyekar". But on the other hand the practice is loaded with forms of devotion taught by the Catholic Church. The influence of the Javanese tradition in Indonesia is not so prominent, since the people's understanding of the Catholic Church's teachings about the dead is quite strong.

The Catholic Church teaches that those who have died still need the prayers of the living, because after they die may still be in the washing fire. The prayers of the living can help those who have died to facilitate their journey towards heaven.

In addition, the Catholic Church also teaches that the dead are still a fellowship of the Church. The motivation of people praying in the grave of the deceased, is diverse: seek the help of the deceased person because the person is holy, the place is silent, praying for the dead.

The practice of praying for the dead explains that there is a connection between devotion and liturgy, especially the Eucharistic Celebration. Devotion to the saints, is an opportunity to live the faith in God more emotionally and warmly without the raw and rigid demands. This emotional and warm devotion will further encourage the faithful to be more litigious. This emotional and warm devotion is encouraged and encouraged by the liturgy, especially the living Eucharistic Celebration. With the power gained from the holy Eucharist, the people is encouraged to deepen it in devotion, inter alia with then dead who is believed to be a saint.

Finally, the general thesis I would like to say is that "this nyekar ritual practice is one proof of the richness of Indonesian tradition, which is a fusion of Indonesian local religions and cultures, which contains the depth of pure taste, the reflection of the hearts of people who always long for the state of peace. Through the chanting of prayer as a form of mutual solidarity between the living and the dead. "The concept of the relationship with God is understood closely through the expression of prayer in the heart that has pure sense and solidarity.

Read More

Aristotelian Conception of Soul

To ask what a human being is is to ask what the nature of a human being is. What makes human beings the kinds of things they are? What makes them distinctive? What sets them apart from other kinds of thing?

Generally, people fall into one of the following three “camps” on the question of the soul (by soul, I mean the immaterial aspect of the human being which thinks, feels, and wills), namely:

1) Materialistic Monists – A person is their body; the soul is reducible to the material or simply doesn’t exist.

2) Descartesian Dualists – A person is their soul; the soul is a separable, non-material substance that inhabits the body.

3) Aristotelian Animalists – A person is their body and their soul; the soul is the non-material form of the body, unified with the body.

In this paper, I will show that the third position, which avoids the pitfalls of both materialism and dualism, the Aristotelian Animalists, is that of the most plausible.

Soul as Form of the Body

Aristotle wrote in De Anima that the soul is: “(a) the source or origin of movement, it is (b) the end, it is (c) the essence of the whole living body.” For Aristotle, there are different kinds of souls (plant, animal, and human) with varying degrees of biological and cognitive activity. The human soul is the animating form of the matter of the human animal, the actuating “breath” of what a body is and does. Aristotle thus distinguishes the soul from the material body, but not as a ghost from a machine. Unlike Plato, Aristotle concluded that the soul is “inseparable from its body,” although the highest faculty of the soul—the mind—is “immortal and eternal.”

According to Aristotle a living creature is ‘substance’. It contains Body = matter, and Soul = form. The soul (psyche) is the structure of the body - its function and organization. This was the word Greeks gave to the animator, the living force in a living being. For Aristotle the psyche controlled reproduction, movement and perception.

In contrast Aristotle regarded reason (nous) as the highest form of rationality. He believed that the ‘unmoved mover’ of the universe was a cosmic nous.

Aristotle thought that the soul is the Form of the body. The soul is simply the sum total of the operations of a human being.

The Stagyrite believed that there exists a hierarchy of living things – plants only have a vegetative soul, animals are above plants because they have appetites, humans are above animals because it has the power of reason.

Distinction between Body and Soul

Aristotle tries to explain his understanding of the distinction between the body and the soul using the analogy of an axe. If an axe were a living thing then its body would be made of wood and metal. However, its soul would be the thing which made it an axe i.e. its capacity to chop. If it lost its ability to chop it would cease to be an axe – it would simply be wood and metal.

Another illustration he uses is the eye. If the eye were an animal, sight would have to be its soul. When the eye no longer sees then it is an eye in name only.

Likewise, a dead animal is only an animal in name only – it has the same body but it has lost its soul.

What is important for Aristotle is the end purpose of something – an axe chops, an eye sees, an animal is animated…etc. This is what is meant by ‘teleology’ from the Greek teleo meaning end.

For Aristotle, the body and soul are not two separate elements but are one thing. The body and the soul are not, as Plato would have it, two distinct entities, but are different parts or aspects of the same thing.

The Problem: Mortal or Immortal

Aristotle does not allow for the possibility of the immortality of the soul. The soul is simply the Form of the body, and is not capable of existing without the body. The soul is that which makes a person a person rather than just a lump of meat! Without the body the soul cannot exist. The soul dies along with the body.

Aristotle appears to make one exception – reason (nous). However, he is not clear about how this reason survives death or whether or not it is personal.


Conclusion

For Aristotle there is no clear evidence such as Plato's Realm. Instead he appeals to our senses, claiming that it through them that we experience reality. However, we are still left with the problem that there is no clear evidence that our senses are reliable. A religious person might argue that we know the world through faith and revelation.

Aristotle does not adequately explain how God as a thinking force could be responsible for causing movement. On the one hand he stresses that real knowledge beings with the senses but the concept of something being moved just through thought is not what most of us experience.

Aristotle's earthy notion of the soul was picked up by scholastic philosophers, most notably Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas agreed with Aristotle that “it belongs to the notion of a soul to be the form of a body,” and that although a human soul’s rationality points to its subsistence after death, the disembodied soul is a form without matter, and therefore incomplete. Death does not result in the final liberation and fulfillment of the soul, but a dislodging of the body’s essence, our being “not wholly at rest.”

The position of the Aristotelian Animalists seems to be the most coherent and plausible than the others: Materialistic Monists and Cartesian Dualists, since it leaves us with the fewest problems and has the most explanatory power.


Readings:
1. Lectures on Philosophical Theories of Person, Manuscript
2. The Human Soul as an Individual Substance: Plato and Aristotle, http://inters.org/soul

Read More

Kind and Structure of Moral Dilemma in Rodrigues' Case

In his article Tragic Dilemmas, Suffering Love, and Christian Life, Philip Quinn argued for the possibility of genuine dilemmas internal to Christian ethics. He took an example from the life of Sebastian Rodrigues, who is the protagonist of Shusaku Endo's novel Silence. He argued for an interpretation of the story according to which Rodrigues confronts a real conflict between the obligation to love God with total devotion and the obligation to love one's neighbor as oneself. He concluded that the outcome of this conflict is not ultimately tragic because it serves providentially to move Rodrigues closer to Christ in suffering love.

What I shall work out in this paper is the ethical dilemma as interpreted by Quinn. I assert that Rodrigues' case is a genuine moral dilemma by showing the structure and the way it might be resolved.

Rodrigues' Dilemma

The story of Sebastian Rodrigues shows that the ideals and obligations involved in following Christ can give such conflicts. He is torn between the demand for loyalty to his priestly vows and to her church and the claim of the suffering of the Japanese Christians makes on his capacity for love of his neighbors.

For Rodrigues, trumpling on a fumie is not just an act of formality. It must signify the betrayal of Christ. His life has made Rodrigues a man who cannot step on the fumie and not have what he is doing be an act of betrayal. And this is an act of self-betrayal.

On the other hand the Christian there suffer because he will not trample on the fumie. Christian love of neighbor requires Rodrigues to act as he does to stop the torture of the Japanese Christian.

Quinn says that “When Rodrigues tramples on fumie, I think, is both to violate a demand of his religious vocation binding on him no matter what is consequences and to satisfy an equally pressing demand for an expression of love of neighbor.1 What happened to Rodrigues, then, is really an ethical dilemma.

He was facing the demands both coming from a single source: the commandment to love God with total devotion and love our neighbors as ourselves. Rodrigues cannot satisfy one of these demands without violating the other.

Of course, on the surface, the choices seem to be a little thing to do, that is to trample or not to trample on the fumie. But as one know the life of Rodrigues, as described in the case, the choices are becoming difficult. Whatever action that Rodrigues choose will end up in violating the other choice.

Objections

At least there are three way of interpreting this conflict not as a genuine moral dilemma.

One can say that Rodrigues can choose not to trample on the fumie and let the Japanese people suffer and die. This point of view comes from the notion that there is another Christian value of martyrdom. If the Japanese Christians die in their torments, they die for their faith, and so they die as martyr. Rodrigues can let the people suffer and die as the way of witnessing their faith to God. It is really a good way of Christianity life. He can easily preserve his loyalty to God and his Church and his integrity as a religious person. So, the choice is not to trample on the fumie.

But in this case, however, the Japanese Christians in the pit are merely pawns in Inoue's game. They do not seek or wish for martyrdom. If such people die under torture, they will not be dying for the Christian faith. They are not the stuff glorious martyrs are made of. So it is not best for them that their torture in the pit be prolonged, and Rodrigues does not go contrary to what is best for them when he acts to relieve their suffering.2

Another way of interpreting this dilemma is that Rodrigues can choose the way of trampling on the fumie as imitating the life of Christ. Christ has died for many people, then it is supposed that even in the case of Rodrigues, Christ would have been “apostated”. The matter here is that the value of life of the Japanese Christian, is in comparison with the fumie. One ought to safe lives rather than something that is merely an image. Rodrigues ought to immitate suffering of Christ for the sake of many people. Quinn's answer to this objection is that Christians are not obliged to imitate the life of Christ in all its concrete details. “What we are called to imitate is something more abstract, a pattern deriving from the life of Christ, and this pattern represents the life of Christ as it has been refracted through scriptural traditions and our culture's interpretations of those traditions. In short, it is a cultural construction.”3 This cultural construction, according to Quinn, can give rise to dilemmas when one tries to apply them in circumstances very different from those they were constructed to fit. Rodrigues' tragic situation is not the same as the scene of Getshemane.

The third way of approaching this dilemma is to blame Rodrigues that this dilemma is of course come from his own fault. There is an opinion that moral dilemmas can arise only when, as a result of violating one or more moral demands, a person would find that there is a moral demand he or she can obey only if he or she violates another. But this is not true in the story of Rodrigues.

Quinn then continue to work on that Rodrigues' Dilemma is something providential. For a Christian view, the fall of Rodrigues bring something new. “He has come to love Christ in a new way. And, more important, everything he had been through had been necessary to bring him to this new love.”4

Structure of the Dilemma

The moral dilemma here happened, according to Alasdair McIntyre,5 as a situation concerns to alternative ideal character. Rodrigues is compelled by his realistic analysis of what is required for supreme excellence for him being a misionary priest. He is in torn between love of God and love of neighbour. This is for Quinn is a special Christian concern, and proposes thereafter, a theory of providence. It is for Rodrigues a providence of God to learn from his tragic dilemma on how to gain a new way of applying Christian ethic in some alternative way.

Let's consider the case from the consequentialist point of view. It is appear to me intuitively. It is better to choose for saving a big number of Japanese Christian than to sacrifice oneself's integrity. The problem could be resolved if Rodrigues just trample on the fumie because the consequence of this action is more valuable. Of course, then, he would have saved more lives. Trampling to the fumie for Rodrigues might be just an act of sacrificing his integrity as a religious person. One could also say that it is just a formal act of apostasy, not real apostasy. It is like a kind of self-sacrifice to gain more life saving.

But that is not true if we look closely at Rodrigues life. It is not just a fumie. It is not just an act of trampling to something. It is indeed a denial of the truth. And in the case of Rodrigues it is indeed a denial of absolute truth, that is God himself, represented in the fumie. Whatever he choose, he action still violate the other action.

Conclusion

Considering Quinn's way of describing the tragic dilemma of Rodrigues I should conclude, the case of Rodrigues maybe won't happened in our time now. But the point is, beside many arguments out there, a Genuine Moral Dilemma do happened. It is obvious from the Rodrigues case. Whenever moral dilemmas exist, they need to be describable. Once describable they should be resolvable.



Readings:
1. Philip Quinn, Tragic Dilemmas, Suffering Love, and Christian Life, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 151-183, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40017784
2. Alasdair Macintyre, Moral Dilemmas, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. L, Supplement, Fall 1990

1 Philip Quinn, Tragic Dilemmas, Suffering Love, and Christian Life, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 170,
2Ibid. p. 173
3Ibid. p. 176
4Ibid. p.
5Alasdair Macintyre, Moral Dilemmas, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. L, Supplement, Fall 1990, pp. 367-368

Read More