Women and Selective service

[bardegaulois]

7 hours ago, Basilisa Marie said:

Hey buddy. 

What do feet taste like? 

First, I'm not your buddy. Second, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Peace]

30 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

First, I'm not your buddy. Second, I have no idea what you are talking about.

The two of you should become good friends. 

[SaintOfVirtue]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

This is exactly why I say it is a mere exercise in philosophy with little practical application.  The determination is made by "those who have responsibility for the common good".  Who exactly is that? For the sake of the argument let's say that I agree with St. Augustine and that such a determination should be made by "superior and lawful authority" which would be congress in the USA.  Now things get tricky because who those people are, what they perceive as the common good, even what their personal world-view is, is going to change whether they view a war as just or unjust.  Hence, as an example, in 2003 the congress saw fit to declare war and invade Iraq.  That same decision would not have been reached in the current congress.  Therefore, the recent Iraq war could be described as just or unjust depending on who you talk to (with convincing factual arguments on both sides).  There is no concrete criteria for the application of the relatively abstract ideals expressed in the just war doctrine.  Hence, one generation may wage what they consider a just war and the next generation may find it to be unjust. 

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, SaintOfVirtue said:

This is exactly why I say it is a mere exercise in philosophy with little practical application.  The determination is made by "those who have responsibility for the common good".  Who exactly is that? For the sake of the argument let's say that I agree with St. Augustine and that such a determination should be made by "superior and lawful authority" which would be congress in the USA.  Now things get tricky because who those people are, what they perceive as the common good, even what their personal world-view is, is going to change whether they view a war as just or unjust.  Hence, as an example, in 2003 the congress saw fit to declare war and invade Iraq.  That same decision would not have been reached in the current congress.  Therefore, the recent Iraq war could be described as just or unjust depending on who you talk to (with convincing factual arguments on both sides).  There is no concrete criteria for the application of the relatively abstract ideals expressed in the just war doctrine.  Hence, one generation may wage what they consider a just war and the next generation may find it to be unjust. 

Congress did not apply or even attempt to apply Catholic just war doctrine when determining whether or not to invade Iraq. You cannot say that if Congress did apply Catholic just war doctrine, as they should have, that they would have still concluded to go to war. We will never know because they never attempted to do so.

It is not true that there is "no concrete criteria for the application of the relatively abstract ideals expressed in the just war doctrine." There are entire books on the topic with concrete examples. It is a topic that Catholic moral theologians have written much about.

And a Catholic may choose to be a conscientious objector to a war that he concludes is unjust. That is especially true where the authorities have not even attempted to apply the Catholic just war doctrine.

Just because Congress refuses to apply the doctrine or applies it incorrectly or arbitrarily does not make it right to attack PhuturePriest as being a draft-dodger or for being naive for raising the doctrine. He is right for taking that into consideration when considering what, if any, participation he will take in war.

[Nihil Obstat]

56 minutes ago, SaintOfVirtue said:

This is exactly why I say it is a mere exercise in philosophy with little practical application.  The determination is made by "those who have responsibility for the common good".  Who exactly is that? For the sake of the argument let's say that I agree with St. Augustine and that such a determination should be made by "superior and lawful authority" which would be congress in the USA.  Now things get tricky because who those people are, what they perceive as the common good, even what their personal world-view is, is going to change whether they view a war as just or unjust.  Hence, as an example, in 2003 the congress saw fit to declare war and invade Iraq.  That same decision would not have been reached in the current congress.  Therefore, the recent Iraq war could be described as just or unjust depending on who you talk to (with convincing factual arguments on both sides).  There is no concrete criteria for the application of the relatively abstract ideals expressed in the just war doctrine.  Hence, one generation may wage what they consider a just war and the next generation may find it to be unjust. 

The answer to the dilemma is that there is an external standard for morality, I.e. Christ, whom we imitate only imperfectly. Your implication that just war theory becomes irrelevant strays to relativism. The fact that such disagreements exist is actually proof of how desperately we need just war theory.

[SaintOfVirtue]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Congress did not apply or even attempt to apply Catholic just war doctrine when determining whether or not to invade Iraq. You cannot say that if Congress did apply Catholic just war doctrine, as they should have, that they would have still concluded to go to war. We will never know because they never attempted to do so.

It is not true that there is "no concrete criteria for the application of the relatively abstract ideals expressed in the just war doctrine." There are entire books on the topic with concrete examples. It is a topic that Catholic moral theologians have written much about.

And a Catholic may choose to be a conscientious objector to a war that he concludes is unjust. That is especially true where the authorities have not even attempted to apply the Catholic just war doctrine.

Just because Congress refuses to apply the doctrine or applies it incorrectly or arbitrarily does not make it right to attack PhuturePriest as being a draft-dodger or for being naive for raising the doctrine. He is right for taking that into consideration when considering what, if any, participation he will take in war.

There are Catholics in congress who voted for the war.  Arguably, they applied the just war doctrine to their personal conscience and so doing justified their vote (but I will concede this to be a trivial hypothetical).  My point is: even among Catholics there is debate as to whether the war was justified or not; both sides have convincing arguments and I have not heard a be-all-end-all objective answer to the discussion.  Therefore, I maintain that the just war doctrine is more an "exercise in philosophy" better for forming the conscience than as some objective checklist for determining whether to declare war or not.

Lastly, to tell someone their opinion is naively amusing is not a personal attack.  I specifically called out that I was being critical of his opinions and at no point did I call him a draft-dodger, coward, or insinuate anything against PhuturePriest's ambitions of being a priest.  On the contrary I remember stating, and I quote, "Now, I am NOT calling you a coward or saying you are unfit for the priesthood, so just because I am critical of the opinions you've expressed don't go lumping me in with those who do."  So do NOT put words in my mouth.  

54 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The answer to the dilemma is that there is an external standard for morality, I.e. Christ, whom we imitate only imperfectly. Your implication that just war theory becomes irrelevant strays to relativism. The fact that such disagreements exist is actually proof of how desperately we need just war theory.

I am not arguing over the theory; I am arguing the application of the theory.  The theory is fine, the application is impractical.  Hence, you can have two Catholics find a war just or unjust with both of them referencing the just war doctrine. 

 

(P.S. I was wondering how long it would be before someone caught the relativism-esque notions in my argument.  Good job, but I'm not sure it's relevant... ba-dum-tsh)

Edited February 8, 2016 by SaintOfVirtue

[Peace]

43 minutes ago, SaintOfVirtue said:

I specifically called out that I was being critical of his opinions and at no point did I call him a draft-dodger, coward, or insinuate anything against PhuturePriest's ambitions of being a priest.  On the contrary I remember stating, and I quote, "Now, I am NOT calling you a coward or saying you are unfit for the priesthood, so just because I am critical of the opinions you've expressed don't go lumping me in with those who do."  So do NOT put words in my mouth.

I never accused you of that.

[Basilisa Marie]

6 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

First, I'm not your buddy. Second, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Come on. Let's be buddies. 

I asked what feet taste like because I thought you put your foot in your mouth with that comment. My bad. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't think that PP said anything so bad that merited such a reaction to his posts. All he said was - if a war seems unjust using our reason and teaching on just war, he'd rather be a medic or something rather than being in combat. I think that makes sense. I also don't think that many if any wars today are "just wars". Some here might disagree, but I don't think having such an opinion on today's wars means a person is ignorant, cowardly, naïve, etc.

Edited February 8, 2016 by MarysLittleFlower