Disputations: Disproportionate infliction of pain
The question is, are we naming by the 'word' torture the external act (which has for its object the infliction of bodily harm or pain) or the composite of the external act and the internal act (the end of which intention is to induce someone else to cooperate, give information, etc.). It seems the latter, because the internal act gives the formality which defines or puts the external act within a particular moral species.
I argue that torture is unjust here. If it (or the external act) is unjust, how can it possibly be proportionate under any circumstances?
My thinking on this needs to be clarified further.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
James Chastek, Proofs for God's Existence
And "The difference between scholastic and modern theology":
What, then, of monastic theology? Was monastic theology primarily a commentary on Sacred Scripture? Or was there more to it? And what about the theology of the Church Fathers? So much more to read and discover...
What the theistic proofs have in in common with the other kinds of proofs for existence is they are all necessary because of some weakness of our intellect. No one needs to prove the existence of trees since they’re just there. For the same reason, no on needed to prove the existence of black swans to Australians; and no one would need to prove the existence of black holes to a civilization which (somehow) could just look up and see one in the sky (like the passengers on the Disney movie The Black Hole). The difference is that the standards of what counts as proof are different in the case of natural science and in metaphysics.
And "The difference between scholastic and modern theology":
The main transition from scholastic to modern theology (which took a few centuries) was the shift from speculative philosophy to history as the field in which one encounters God. The scholastic did not need elaborate, critical, and highly advanced systems of historical analysis in order to do what he understood as theology; just as a modern theologian does not need elaborate logical and disputative systems to do what he understands as theology.
What, then, of monastic theology? Was monastic theology primarily a commentary on Sacred Scripture? Or was there more to it? And what about the theology of the Church Fathers? So much more to read and discover...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)