HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING...

[Krush2k2]

[B]Okay say I saw a car burnin with kids inside, and the only way to stop it was to steal a fire extinquisher at a nearby, closed local store. Say I stole the extinguisher and put out enough flames to save the kids lives, yet in the act I caught on fire in died. And lets say for thought, until that point I was free of mortal sin and a good Catholic- According to the church, would I be destined for hell because I committed a mortal sin before death unrepented(though shall not steal)? Or would it be excused since it was done to save life and the greater good? I ask because I came across a writing by St.Thomas Aquinas where he said you should not commit a sin even if it has a greater good reasoning behind it, as no good comes from evil(sin) which I didnt quite agree with-your thoughts?

[Guest Aluigi]

the local store has the moral obligation to lend it to you to save lives. you have committed no sin. at least in my humble opinion.

[Krush2k2]

Yea, but in my story, the store is closed therefore I must steal it as my only way-so with that in mind-wat r yalls thoughts?

[God Conquers]

Aquinas would say that you acted out of necessity and that your act of taking the fire extinguisher was not, in fact, stealing at all, or rather, you would not be culpable for the act. (And would probaly be virtuous)

[Guest JeffCR07]

Let us define theft, or stealing, as the unjust taking of another person's property. It seems to me that the above scenario does not constitute theft because it does not adequately satisfy the definition, namely, the aquisition of the fire extinguisher is not unjust in its object (or perhaps even in its action) and so would be permissible and one would not be culpable for the action.

Let us consider a similar example to illustrate the point. Vandalism is the unjust destruction, damaging, or defacing of another's property. You are in your best friend's house, and it is on fire. You see a fire extinguisher in a glass case, and you are the only one who can reach it, however, you must shatter the glass in order to get to it. It is clear that the action of breaking the glass is not a sin and so is of course permissible. The key here is that, under the circumstances, the action is not vandalism.

What St. Thomas was saying was that it is never permissible to engage in sin, even if it is for the greater good. Thus, it is never permissible to murder, but sometimes it is permissible to kill.

Allow me to illustrate the difference. Murder is a sin, for the Father commands us "Thou shalt not murder."

Murder is the unjust taking of life, killing is the taking of life. Thus, if we are in an absolute scenario (say a person is attacking you and your family), with all other options spent, it is permissible to kill that person as long as the killing is not unjust. If the killing is not unjust, then it is not murder, and not a sin, and, as such, is permissible.

However, let us imagine a case in which we could [i]unjustly[/i] kill a person (murder them) for the benefit of the common good (let us imagine that we could go back in time and meet the mother of Hitler). In this case, the person has done no wrong, and the act of killing would be unjust, because the victim is innocent, and other options have not been spent. As such, this killing is unjust and thereby murder. Murder is a sin, and, as St. Aquinus tells us, it is never permissible to sin, even if it will benefit the common good. As such, one could not murder Hitler's mother, given the opportunity.

So we see that the key is differentiating between an action that is normatively unjust, but just in a particular situation, and a sin, which is unjust by definition. The former is, under the circumstances in which it is not unjust, permissible, while the latter, which is always unjust, is never permissible.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

Edited November 18, 2004 by JeffCR07

[CatholicCrusader]

If you stole without the intention of paying for the extinguisher, it would be at least a venial sin. If you took it out of necessity but after the fact you would have made restitution, then I don't think there is any sin. In either case, I am sure the store owner would not have minded you taking the extinguisher to save the children in the car. He probably wouldn't have even made you pay for it.

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 18 2004, 10:32 AM'] If you stole without the intention of paying for the extinguisher, it would be at least a venial sin. If you took it out of necessity but after the fact you would have made restitution, then I don't think there is any sin. In either case, I am sure the store owner would not have minded you taking the extinguisher to save the children in the car. He probably wouldn't have even made you pay for it. [/quote]
You know, yesterday you guys told me you don't know if you'll be saved or not, but today you make the assumption that a person actually would have done something, even though in this case you CAN'T know that someone would do something (namely, pay for the fire extinguisher after the fact). I don't understand this illogical way of thinking.

First off, had the store been open, does anyone think that the store owner would have said no? Making the assumption that the owner would have allowed it, then the question is moot. Had the store owner said no, who carries the greater guilt?

This is basic law theory. The mother (or father) could not be considered culpable, even in the act of willful sin. There are many examples in the bible of law being broken in this kind of manor. Just read it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='noncatholicname' date='Nov 18 2004, 09:49 PM'] You know, yesterday you guys told me you don't know if you'll be saved or not, but today you make the assumption that a person actually would have done something, even though in this case you CAN'T know that someone would do something (namely, pay for the fire extinguisher after the fact). I don't understand this illogical way of thinking.

First off, had the store been open, does anyone think that the store owner would have said no? Making the assumption that the owner would have allowed it, then the question is moot. Had the store owner said no, who carries the greater guilt?

This is basic law theory. The mother (or father) could not be considered culpable, even in the act of willful sin. There are many examples in the bible of law being broken in this kind of manor. Just read it. [/quote]
1. As stated, this is a hypothetical question.
2. The notion was essentially is stealing a mortal sin when necessary for a just cause. The answer is that properly speaking, it isn't sin, because sin requires an unjust cause.

I don't see how this has anything to do with OSAS or knowing that you are saved.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Noncatholicname, a couple points, if you dont mind.

First, your post seems to decry us (catholics) as being hypocrytical
(unless I read your post wrong, which may very well be the case, and, if so, I appologize) and yet you have asserted the same thing that CatholicCrusader asserted and, in some ways, what I asserted in my longer response to the question.

If you disagree with me on my evaluation of the scenario, I would welcome discussion, you may very well have noted something that I missed.

That having been said, I would like to point out something else. I do not point it out because I think you have made the following error, but rather, I point it out because a reader who is untrained in formal ethics could very well fall into the following logical error, which would result in their own harm

[quote]This is basic law theory[/quote]

Applying law theory to morality is a very dangerous thing to do, on the grounds that it encourages one to embrace legal positivism as a moral doctrine. Laws should be respected, of course, and they should be obeyed (insofar as they do not force one to sin) out of respect for God, on account of the fact that all authority was His, in the beginning of time, will be his come the end of time, and really, truly is His here in the interum, and it is simply a matter of fact that He has allowed us to, each in our own way and given our station in life, wield some measure of that authority which is His now.

However, civic law and moral law are two very different things, and, though a civil law may legislate with regards to a moral manner (say, for example, the legal prohibition on murder), the moral principle must always remain fundamentally seperated from the legal nature of the given law or judgement.

What must be acknowledged, is that laws, in and of themselves, do not bear moral significance and, as such "basic law theory" should never be the cornerstone of a moral decision. A law does not, and cannot, go forth in power to become a metaphysical, universally binding truth. To assert anything of the sort is to fall into the trap of a philosophical legalism that holds within itself inherent contradiction and, as such, is entirely untenable.

For example, let us imagine a world in which the principles of legalism illustrated above actually exist: The Roe v. Wade case is decided in the US, and the decision/law goes forth in power to become a metaphysical truth - that is, a woman really and truly has a Right or a Freedom of Choice, and this Right/Freedom is universally binding to all humanity. However, the Vatican also issues a law, stating that abortion is illegal. This law goes forth in power to become a metaphysical truth - that is, a woman really and truly does [i]not[/i] have a Right or a Freedom of Choice, and this lack of a Right/Freedom is universally binding to all humanity. We now have our contradiction, and we see that legal positivism is absurd, because it allows for mutually exclusive, mutually existing, and mutually binding moral principles.

So, just a warning to anyone who reads those words I have quoted above: the law should, of course, be considered, out of respect for Divine Authority, however, be very careful not to allow the letter of the law to co-opt the actual Moral Law when making a decision, or else you will fall into an error of legalism

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Nov 18 2004, 08:52 PM'] 1. As stated, this is a hypothetical question.
2. The notion was essentially is stealing a mortal sin when necessary for a just cause. The answer is that properly speaking, it isn't sin, because sin requires an unjust cause.

I don't see how this has anything to do with OSAS or knowing that you are saved. [/quote]
It's a comment on the fact that people make absolute judgements concerning things that they cannot know, but on things that they can know with certainty, they waffle around.

This question is one example. A hypothetical question that everyone already knows the answer to. But given the right amount of time, an argument will ensue concerning who will go to hell and who wont.

I point out the common logical deficiencies, that's all.

[noncatholicname]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 18 2004, 10:28 PM']

First, your post seems to decry us (catholics) as being hypocrytical
(unless I read your post wrong, which may very well be the case, and, if so, I appologize)[/quote]

You didn't read it wrong, but it's not a catholic thing, it's a human thing. People make a postive belief concerning that which they cannot know, but state a negative belief concerning that which they absolutely can know. It's just something I don't understand about people.

Edited November 19, 2004 by noncatholicname

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='noncatholicname' date='Nov 19 2004, 12:35 AM'] It's a comment on the fact that people make absolute judgements concerning things that they cannot know, but on things that they can know with certainty, they waffle around.

This question is one example. A hypothetical question that everyone already knows the answer to. But given the right amount of time, an argument will ensue concerning who will go to hell and who wont.

I point out the common logical deficiencies, that's all. [/quote]
I see your point. However, there is not logical deficiency. We can answer a hypothetical question because for a logical argument to be valid, it does not need to be sound. A question can have an answer, even if it is hypothetical. Sometimes hypothetical questions won't have answers, but other times they can. That doesn't make the answer applicable to the real world, but it does let them exist as real answers.

Of course, you assume a position in your first point which is fallacious because it is unsound. We cannot know our salvation with certainty.

We do not say who doesn't go to heaven. We can know certain people who are in heaven, and know that they are in heaven (canonized saints). This does not exclude others. We do not, however, assume that anyone is in Hell. Further than that, please explain your position in layman's terms...not all of us can reach into your mind and understand your meaning.

[Guest JeffCR07]

noncatholicname, if you could reply to the content of my post, I would really appreciate it, thanks a ton, and have a blessed day!

[toledo_jesus]

i'd say hypothetically, it's about as wrong as a police officer borrowing a car to chase a criminal. Of course, how often does that happen?
It is not a sin to take the extinguisher, because it was a necessity. There was no avarice involved, nor any dishonest action. If there had been a hose, would you have stopped to ask the owner before turning it on and running up the water bill?