Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality  (Read 944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4043
  • Reputation: +3870/-1215
  • Gender: Male
TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
« on: June 28, 2019, 02:25:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • After the worldwide cataclysm, which brought about TEOTWAKI ("the end of the world as we know it"), instituting a world WROL ("without rule of law"), Catholic survivors will have a whole new set of moral problems to deal with.

    Certain types of cataclysm will make the production of food almost impossible for a time (e.g., nuclear war: Polluted ground, radioactive meat, nuclear winter blocking sunlight), and in these types of disasters, cannibalism will emerge as the primary threat: People will hunt people for food.

    Here is a moral scenario I wondered about: 

    Hidden in a field above my bunker, I spot a woman and child being pursued by a gang of men who, if they capture them (which seems imminent), will rape, murder, and eat them.  

    It seems there are a number of (apparent) conflicting moral principles which would lay claims upon my duties and reaction:

    1) Necessity imposes a grave obligation to come to the physical aid for anyone who has the possibility of rendering it (i.e., I may sin gravely if I do nothing, and be damned);

    2) Duty of state: If I attempt to intervene, I will be overwhelmed, killed, and my family will be without protection, and in turn probably suffer the same fate as the woman and child.

    Questions:

    1) Is it the probability of victory which determines whether or not the duty to intervene compele one?

    2) Or, will I be damned for intervening, knowing I will probably betray my family to the same fate if I intervene?

    What would be the Catholic thing to do?

    As an aside, this difficult situation and decision suggests Catholics group themselves into their own militias/prepper groups, and you will have less liklihood of having to wrestle with such situations (i.e., If we had a militia, we would surely intervene and wipe out the marauders).
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4043
    • Reputation: +3870/-1215
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #1 on: June 28, 2019, 03:26:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Cannibal prevention (if you can afford the ammo):

    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Kazimierz

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 742
    • Reputation: +553/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #2 on: June 28, 2019, 04:57:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Cannibal prevention (if you can afford the ammo):


    Savage rifles tend to be way overpriced. They do have a few winners out there, and a few losers, speaking from experience.
    338 Lapua is great for the long range sniping of apocalyptoids, but likely we will encounter them at far closer distances.
    308 WIN just as good for longer distances. Cheaper ammo too. 
    As with everything, such as daily prayer, you have to practice frequently with whatever thou hast.  :cowboy:
    With the moral question about the gang of men chasing a woman with or without child, I doubt they will want to have a high tea social. ;)In such a situation, you are defending the weak and helpless.Also calls up the need for a semi auto rifle. Lots of 5.56 mm and 7.62 x 39 surplus out there, even in Canada eh!

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4043
    • Reputation: +3870/-1215
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #3 on: June 28, 2019, 05:32:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Savage rifles tend to be way overpriced. They do have a few winners out there, and a few losers, speaking from experience.
    338 Lapua is great for the long range sniping of apocalyptoids, but likely we will encounter them at far closer distances.
    308 WIN just as good for longer distances. Cheaper ammo too.
    As with everything, such as daily prayer, you have to practice frequently with whatever thou hast.  :cowboy:
    With the moral question about the gang of men chasing a woman with or without child, I doubt they will want to have a high tea social. ;)In such a situation, you are defending the weak and helpless.Also calls up the need for a semi auto rifle. Lots of 5.56 mm and 7.62 x 39 surplus out there, even in Canada eh!

    1) FCP110 is $1,300 +/-.  All other weapons chambered in same caliber from ANY other mfg tend to be 2-3x higher (unless there is something out there I don't know about, which is not likely);

    2) Agree: I would not pick this weapon for shots closer than 300 yards (but you wouldn't purchase it as a close quarter battle rifle);

    3) .308 WIN cannot even come close to .338 in ELR shooting.  .338 currently holds world record verified kill in Afghanistan at 2,708 yards.  Navy seals don't use .308 WIN for anything longer than 500 yards, if they can help it.

    If you were referring to .308 Win Mag or .308 short mag, those reach out a bit longer, but probably top out around 1,000 yards.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Kazimierz

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 742
    • Reputation: +553/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #4 on: June 28, 2019, 09:11:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1) FCP110 is $1,300 +/-.  All other weapons chambered in same caliber from ANY other mfg tend to be 2-3x higher (unless there is something out there I don't know about, which is not likely);

    2) Agree: I would not pick this weapon for shots closer than 300 yards (but you wouldn't purchase it as a close quarter battle rifle);

    3) .308 WIN cannot even come close to .338 in ELR shooting.  .338 currently holds world record verified kill in Afghanistan at 2,708 yards.  Navy seals don't use .308 WIN for anything longer than 500 yards, if they can help it.

    If you were referring to .308 Win Mag or .308 short mag, those reach out a bit longer, but probably top out around 1,000 yards.
    The 338 Lapua is indeed a great calibre to shoot them zombiefied demoncrats at longer distances. It is a Canadian sniper who holds that record.  :) Used a TAC 50 rifle. Crazy!
     308 is more readily available to stockpile thy bunker. Picking up a .50 cal also not a bad idea. 
    If my aches will abate for even a small window of time, I want to get out and shoot my yet to be fired Marlin in 45.70 with a 405 grain Bear Load.
    And some 3.5 in shotgun shells too with my also YTBF Mossy. :)
    I wuv mah Ruger American Ranch in 5.56.  :cowboy:
    My eyesight is still excellent amidst the rest of me which feels like it wants to fall apart completely most days. ;D
    Czuwaj!


    Offline St Ignatius

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 941
    • Reputation: +751/-145
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #5 on: June 28, 2019, 10:56:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 3) .308 WIN cannot even come close to .338 in ELR shooting.  .338 currently holds world record verified kill in Afghanistan at 2,708 yards.  Navy seals don't use .308 WIN for anything longer than 500 yards, if they can help it.

    You're picking on my go to cartridge.
    Here's an amusing video for those who think that the .308 is inadequate. 



    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17390
    • Reputation: +9711/-4263
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #6 on: June 29, 2019, 05:50:27 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, the probability of success factors in to the morality of the decision.  Prudential considerations do inform the morality of actions.  If you think there's a low chance for success, and a high risk of harm done to your family, it would not be a mortal sin not to intervene.

    Let's say there are 50 well-armed men about to attack an innocent person  If you go intervene, the only thing you'll accomplish is getting yourself killed.  In that case, it might even be a sin to intervene, since you're putting your life on the line for no reason.  But this is an extreme example.  Things could get blurry depending on the circumstances.  If you think you might have a 50-50 shot of saving them, while the penalty for failure would be possibly risking your family ... let's say that if you're killed off, they would go after your wife and children as well, or longer term because they would have no one around to protect them after your death ... then, wow, those become some very blurry scenarios.  And you wouldn't have the luxury of time to consult a priest about the scenario.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9256
    • Reputation: +3684/-829
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #7 on: June 29, 2019, 05:57:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • After the worldwide cataclysm, which brought about TEOTWAKI ("the end of the world as we know it"), instituting a world WROL ("without rule of law"), Catholic survivors will have a whole new set of moral problems to deal with.

    Certain types of cataclysm will make the production of food almost impossible for a time (e.g., nuclear war: Polluted ground, radioactive meat, nuclear winter blocking sunlight), and in these types of disasters, cannibalism will emerge as the primary threat: People will hunt people for food.

    Here is a moral scenario I wondered about:

    Hidden in a field above my bunker, I spot a woman and child being pursued by a gang of men who, if they capture them (which seems imminent), will rape, murder, and eat them.  

    It seems there are a number of (apparent) conflicting moral principles which would lay claims upon my duties and reaction:

    1) Necessity imposes a grave obligation to come to the physical aid for anyone who has the possibility of rendering it (i.e., I may sin gravely if I do nothing, and be damned);

    2) Duty of state: If I attempt to intervene, I will be overwhelmed, killed, and my family will be without protection, and in turn probably suffer the same fate as the woman and child.

    Questions:

    1) Is it the probability of victory which determines whether or not the duty to intervene compele one?

    2) Or, will I be damned for intervening, knowing I will probably betray my family to the same fate if I intervene?

    What would be the Catholic thing to do?

    As an aside, this difficult situation and decision suggests Catholics group themselves into their own militias/prepper groups, and you will have less liklihood of having to wrestle with such situations (i.e., If we had a militia, we would surely intervene and wipe out the marauders).
    Interesting question.

    The Catholic thing to do would be to do what you can to help the innocent at the same time not getting killed yourself. But should you get killed, it would not have been in vain or for no good reason, so your own well being is secondary to trying to save the woman and child.

    If the woman and child were your mother and sister and some other man in a bunker saw them fleeing the gang, what would you want that man to do - nothing or turn his back and just ignore the situation?

    Then there's the Golden Rule; if you were the woman and child, wouldn't you want the man in the bunker to do something, anything? Futile though it may be, it might give you and child the chance to get away - even if it meant he got killed.

    Perhaps it's easier to justify the above if you were to take the word "Catholic" out of the question, in which case it'd play out along these lines; "Sorry lady, you and the kid are on your own". Then you just go back in the bunker pitying them, close the door safe and sound, and get back to whittling spearheads.
     
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis


    Online Quo vadis Domine

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 425
    • Reputation: +127/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #8 on: June 29, 2019, 06:12:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, the probability of success factors in to the morality of the decision.  Prudential considerations do inform the morality of actions.  If you think there's a low chance for success, and a high risk of harm done to your family, it would not be a mortal sin not to intervene.

    Let's say there are 50 well-armed men about to attack an innocent person  If you go intervene, the only thing you'll accomplish is getting yourself killed.  In that case, it might even be a sin to intervene, since you're putting your life on the line for no reason.  But this is an extreme example.  Things could get blurry depending on the circumstances.  If you think you might have a 50-50 shot of saving them, while the penalty for failure would be possibly risking your family ... let's say that if you're killed off, they would go after your wife and children as well, or longer term because they would have no one around to protect them after your death ... then, wow, those become some very blurry scenarios.  And you wouldn't have the luxury of time to consult a priest about the scenario.
    Good analysis.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22912
    • Reputation: +20061/-240
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #9 on: June 30, 2019, 08:26:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interesting question.

    The Catholic thing to do would be to do what you can to help the innocent at the same time not getting killed yourself. But should you get killed, it would not have been in vain or for no good reason, so your own well being is secondary to trying to save the woman and child.

    If the woman and child were your mother and sister and some other man in a bunker saw them fleeing the gang, what would you want that man to do - nothing or turn his back and just ignore the situation?

    Then there's the Golden Rule; if you were the woman and child, wouldn't you want the man in the bunker to do something, anything? Futile though it may be, it might give you and child the chance to get away - even if it meant he got killed.

    Perhaps it's easier to justify the above if you were to take the word "Catholic" out of the question, in which case it'd play out along these lines; "Sorry lady, you and the kid are on your own". Then you just go back in the bunker pitying them, close the door safe and sound, and get back to whittling spearheads.
     
    Your whole post ignores the fact that the man debating about helping *has a wife a children back in the bunker*.
    You said "so your own well being is secondary to trying to save the woman and child." You assume the man is single and unmarried, with no dependents either.

    Why should that stranger woman and child have a higher claim on this man's life than his own wife and large family back in the bunker?

    You even mock him, suggesting his day-to-day life isn't very noble, describing him whittling spearheads like some lonely bachelor or MGTOW, instead of having him hug his large number of children when he gets back.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9256
    • Reputation: +3684/-829
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #10 on: June 30, 2019, 10:20:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Your whole post ignores the fact that the man debating about helping *has a wife a children back in the bunker*.
    You said "so your own well being is secondary to trying to save the woman and child." You assume the man is single and unmarried, with no dependents either.

    Why should that stranger woman and child have a higher claim on this man's life than his own wife and large family back in the bunker?

    You even mock him, suggesting his day-to-day life isn't very noble, describing him whittling spearheads like some lonely bachelor or MGTOW, instead of having him
    Actually, I mocked no one, I said the guy whittling spearheads is not a Catholic: "Perhaps it's easier to justify the above if you were to take the word "Catholic" out of the question..." Would hugging your children after ignoring the woman and child's peril be more Catholic than whittling spearheads?

    Also, what about your post (along with the other's) assuming the woman and child are "single", while ignoring that the woman and child, who themselves had a large Catholic family waiting for them to come home so she could hug her large number of children, are totally out of luck if they were hoping for any help from a Catholic.

    Does the Golden Rule simply not apply in anyway whatsoever? Are we not our brother's keepers? - if so, then are we not bound to attempt to at least do *something*? Whether it be throw rocks at them from the bushes, mow them down with an automatic rifle, or pick them off one at a time with a hunting rifle or ? BTW, my idea of a "gang" is 5 or 6, not 50, that would be a mob, not a gang.

    I still think "the Catholic thing to do would be to do what you can to help the innocent at the same time not getting killed yourself". Which is to say the Catholic would need to think of some way to stop or forestall the gang without purposely getting himself killed, but if that's what it came to and he did get killed, he would be justified. His family is not going to die because he did, they have provisions and enough ammo to last them.  



    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17390
    • Reputation: +9711/-4263
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #11 on: June 30, 2019, 10:36:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are we not our brother's keepers? - if so, then are we not bound to attempt to at least do *something*? Whether it be throw rocks at them from the bushes, ...

    So you throw a rock at them just so you can pretend you're doing something?  In doing so, you reveal your position and expose your family to slaughter.  But, hey, you threw a rock.  If on the other hand you did happen to have "a machine gun", and therefore a good/reasonable chance of saving the person without jeopardizing your family, then of course you would intervene.

    Here's where it gets very blurry.  I have a weapon and think I have about a 90% chance of success.  But if that 10% comes about, then I've just killed my family.  That's a real tough one.  I would think that your obligation to protect your family comes first.  You are the head of your family and are duty-bound to protect them moreso than you are to protect a stranger.  As Matthew said, this was a big part of the OP's scenario.  Now, if you're a loner, then absolutely I agree with you, that if you have ANY halfway realistic chance of saving the person, you would be duty bound to try ... even at risk of your own life.  But that is not OP's scenario.

    Offline St Ignatius

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 941
    • Reputation: +751/-145
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #12 on: June 30, 2019, 12:47:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why should that stranger woman and child have a higher claim on this man's life than his own wife and large family back in the bunker? 

    This pretty well sums it up... "The Order of Charity."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4251
    • Reputation: +2640/-1211
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #13 on: June 30, 2019, 01:02:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    You are the head of your family and are duty-bound to protect them moreso than you are to protect a stranger.  As Matthew said, this was a big part of the OP's scenario. 
    I agree, family comes first.  As St Paul says, we are obligated to take care of our household first, then those of the "household of the Faith" second (i.e. Trad catholics).  Strangers would be "dead" last (pun intented).  ...I don't think you're obligated to put yourself in danger of death for most people (family excluded).  In such a situation, you'd have to rely on your gut instinct and a quick prayer.
    .
    Another simpler scenario would be related to food.  Supposed you're on your way to the grocery to buy some very necessary things and you don't have much money to spare (i.e. think of an inflationary, food-ration situation).  On the way to the grocery (or after you bought the food) you come across a starving family.  I would give them a little of money or food I had, but I could not give them all, since my family's needs come first.  
    .
    Certainly, God has worked many miracles in such situations for saints that gave away all the food they had, and they returned home to the house/monastery empty handed.  Yet, God miraculously provided them food later.  Surely God can work such miracles for us too, if we had Faith, but there's also prudence to think about.  I'm no saint, so I don't know if such circumstances were meant to test the Faith of the house/monastery and if the actual saint was given the inspiration to give all he had to the strangers.  In absence of such an inspiration, I would think you help them out some, but not give them all.  Maybe my Faith is just lacking?  Maybe I'm just looking at this too materially?  It's very possible.  
    .
    Though there was a story where the Cure of Ars gave away all the school's food and had the children pray all night for a miracle.  In the morning, the food prayed for was there, but St John Marie made the comment that he would never do such a thing again, because he didn't want to tempt Divine Providence.  St John worked many miracles but even he knew that there were limits.  Where does one draw the line between Faith in God and human prudence?  That's a difficult question.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9256
    • Reputation: +3684/-829
    • Gender: Male
    Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
    « Reply #14 on: June 30, 2019, 01:12:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So you throw a rock at them just so you can pretend you're doing something?  In doing so, you reveal your position and expose your family to slaughter.  But, hey, you threw a rock.  If on the other hand you did happen to have "a machine gun", and therefore a good/reasonable chance of saving the person without jeopardizing your family, then of course you would intervene.

    Here's where it gets very blurry.  I have a weapon and think I have about a 90% chance of success.  But if that 10% comes about, then I've just killed my family.  That's a real tough one.  I would think that your obligation to protect your family comes first.  You are the head of your family and are duty-bound to protect them moreso than you are to protect a stranger.  As Matthew said, this was a big part of the OP's scenario.  Now, if you're a loner, then absolutely I agree with you, that if you have ANY halfway realistic chance of saving the person, you would be duty bound to try ... even at risk of your own life.  But that is not OP's scenario.
    I quite clearly understand this, so are you saying that in this scenario, the Golden Rule does not apply - and if so, are you also admitting that in this scenario, that we are not our brother's keeper?

    "He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?" [1 John 3:17]

    So explain, how doth the charity of God abide in this Catholic who "shut up his bowels" from "his brother in need"?

    I am obviously thinking more about the "brother in need" than about the Catholic man's own needs in this scenario. Which is to say that in order to go along with your scenario, you would need to explain how the Catholic is justified in "shutting up his bowels" from "his brother in need" as being the Catholic thing to do.

    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16