Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Author Topic: TEOTWAWKI WROL Morality  (Read 5046 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2019, 02:37:44 PM »
Quote
I quite clearly understand this, so are you saying that in this scenario,
Which scenario - the husband with a family or the single guy with nothing to lose?  Two vastly different moral scenarios.
.
However, I would argue that even if there was a "lone wolf" single guy out there who came across a distressed lady/child, it depends on the # of criminals and his skills on whether he should risk his life to help.  I said "should" because one is not allowed to put themselves in danger of death, except for extreme circuмstances.  If you enter a fight you know you can't win (assuming you don't have a duty to be in the fight), then I think that would be morally wrong.  False courage is not a virtue and God does not require the impossible.
Logged

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2019, 02:48:53 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on June 30, 2019, 10:36:17 AM
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.
Excellent post! I’ll add another factor into the scenario, what if the woman being chased was covered in tattoos and piercings? What is she had a rainbow flag shirt?
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2019, 03:33:17 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 30, 2019, 02:37:44 PM
Which scenario - the husband with a family or the single guy with nothing to lose?  Two vastly different moral scenarios.Start with the OP scenario:
OP Said: "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".

He makes no mention of, and says nothing of concern for any wife or children, so go with "the single guy with nothing to lose" (except his life) first. Who said anything about a wife and children any way?



Quote
However, I would argue that even if there was a "lone wolf" single guy out there who came across a distressed lady/child, it depends on the # of criminals and his skills on whether he should risk his life to help.  I said "should" because one is not allowed to put themselves in danger of death, except for extreme circuмstances.  If you enter a fight you know you can't win (assuming you don't have a duty to be in the fight), then I think that would be morally wrong.  False courage is not a virtue and God does not require the impossible.

Make the number of criminals, "the gang", 5 or 6.  

Certainly, there is much left out of the scenario. Are the woman/child faithful Catholics? Is the guy in the bunker married with children? If any, what weapons does he / the gang have? Are they being chased in a subdivision, desert, woods or ? How many are chasing them? and on and on.

He did not ask "what to do?", he asked, "What is the Catholic thing to do?" Which of course, obviously it'd be plain stupid to stand in front of a tank, or to think it worth trying to help if 50 raving, drooling gang members are almost on her and the child.

For me, I imagined it to be at least a somewhat workable scenario. In which case, the Catholic should at least do something to help them escape - because *that* would be the Catholic thing to do.  





Logged

Offline Kazimierz

Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2019, 03:44:17 PM »
Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on June 30, 2019, 02:48:53 PM
Excellent post! I’ll add another factor into the scenario, what if the woman being chased was covered in tattoos and piercings? What is she had a rainbow flag shirt?
If you could get yourself one of these weapons, (see video) it would definitely give you a leg up to try to rescue said female.
My honest opinion is that whether you engage the enemy or not, the woman will die. Dead after torture and rape. Dead through crossfire.
Dead because one of the mob, being a feral beast, decides she aint worth it.
If said female survives the firefight, hopefully a lop-sided one on our favour, she will be informed that things are now operating under a new law (God's Law, Church Law - and the laws that flow from it. i.e. Sodomy et all punishable by death) she has an option whether to straighten out or else she can go back into the world and try her chances once again.
Prudence and charity cannot be divorced from one another here.
Logged

Offline Kazimierz

Re: TEOTWAKI WROL Morality
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2019, 03:48:57 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on June 30, 2019, 03:33:17 PM


Make the number of criminals, "the gang", 5 or 6.  
Properly armed and trained (which ALL TradCat men should aim for, no pun intended) then it will be easier to shoot and kill the 5.
Then the female survivors et al.......see my previous post.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
« previous next »