Didn’t the Catholic Church shut down its adoption services rather than place kids with gay and lesbian couples?
You don’t have a moral responsibility to your pet before a random stranger. You have a responsibility to the stranger, just as they to you. It’s not hard to have the moral high ground when you cede it so willingly. Please spare us round two where you provide a nuanced description of why pedophilia ain’t so bad after all, and round three where you describe how wife beating is simply necessary for society, all chock full o’ nuance!
That’s like me talking about someone with gold jewelry, nice clothes, and a sports car and you going “That doesn’t mean they’re rich. Gold can be bought for cheap in pawn shops, and maybe the car had 150k miles on it and he fixed it up with spare parts.” All very true, but you’re missing the point of the hypothetical description. I’m talking about a rich person, not some dude who happens to have the three attributes I chose to make an example of.
The Pope is talking about people with no kids and a lot of pets. He isn’t actually talking about literal pet ownership. He’s saying parenthood is a virtue.
Alls I’m sayin’ is half the people here didn’t read or listen to what he said, and to the other half I’m saying what you’re saying…“you know he’s the Pope, right? You’re passingly familiar with the roles and responsibilities?” It’s as if it’s everyone’s first time Catholic-ing or something.
You understand what that means, right? A lot of people don’t.
Papal infallibility means he gets to decide what the Church’s doctrine is. If he says the Church believes X, then that’s it, that’s the final word. It’s like saying the POTUS is the commander in chief. His orders are the top of the military chain, there is no one higher. That’s what infallibility means.
You might’ve known that, but in case you didn’t.
So we disagree on moral responsibility. You feel very strongly about this, and claiming the moral authority to dictate said moral responsibility to people who OBVIOUSLY don’t share yours. So, yeah, going to stick with you being a hypocrite of the worst sort. You fit the quote I provided to a T. You’re the worst sort of humblebraggart, the one who hides behind a curtain as they pass judgement on everyone around them based on a personal moral code that they are smugly self-righteous about. If you are certain that only you have the divine revelation about morality, then you should be off running your church - not here.
Or if you acknowledge that other people can and do make moral decisions without agreeing with yours, then you can just apologize. But since you decided that comparing moral responsibility is similar in any way to endorsing pedophilia, I’m going to just assume you’re a fucking troll - because that is what a troll would do. So once again, I find your continued support for the argument that some humans aren’t worth saving worthwhile, using you as a prime example of people not worth the risk of my life (but unlike you, I don’t disregard the morals of someone else who might find you worth saving, see the difference?).
Not sure. The pope says people with pets, but not children, are a bit selfish despite an overpopulated world. I do not really agree with him.
If he is stating his personal opinion I am unsure to what degree he is speaking for the church. If he is speaking for the church, I accept he has been given the authority to do this, but still disagree with this point. I disagree with much of what he says. I still like him as a person. Unsure if this captures the meaning of infallibility.
Most of the people that brought up spending on second homes, cars and boats were replying to @bump who claimed that buying expensive pet food was damn near criminal.
“Infallibility” only counts when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, which this speech wasn’t. This was an editorial, not a white paper.
Oh, yeah? What if the dog was Rin Tin Tin and the human was Hitler? What then, smart guy?
Depends. Is it adult Hitler or child Hitler? Cuz if it’s adult Hitler, it’s already too late to stop him from doing that horrible and despicable thing he did- fathering Boomers.
Hitler died childless. He may even have been a virgin.
I think you missed the part of his remarks where he implored couples to have children to stave off “demographic winter”.
Yes, there are plenty of nimrods who argue that people are obliged to have children to keep the human population at its current unsustainable level and to provide enough warm bodies to service needs of the elderly and society in general. Trying to guilt pet owners is still repugnant. And it’s not the first time the pope has sounded off like this (in 2014 he made comments about how bitterly lonely people will be in their old age with just their pets, lacking children who maybe will check in on them at the holidays).
Francis should set a good example by adopting a bunch of kids himself. Surely there’s enough room at the Vatican. At the same time he can do his part to avoid demographic winter by fathering children like earlier popes, if it’s not too late.
One has, by definition, assumed personal responsibility for the well-being of one’s pet. One has, again by definition, not assumed any particular responsibility for the well-being of a random stranger*. To assert that the former does not carry a moral responsibility absent in the latter is to reject the entire concept of personal integrity (i.e. living up to one’s given word).
*This is somewhat complicated in that some people do assume wider responsibilities, such as a soldier or peace officer who has assumed a responsibility to defend the community generally. However, general statements are not assumed to fall within special cases.
Dammit. Can we make it Goebbels, then? Cuz you’re ruining a pretty good joke. Silenus, come back, we’re gonna take it from the top.
“Look, kid, I’d love to save your life but I promised my cat I wouldn’t.”
The point isn’t that you don’t have a moral responsibility to both of them. The point is that a person, ANY person comes before an animal.
Which in a manner of speaking is what the Pope is saying- people are substituting pets for children in his view, and he doesn’t agree with it.
So, because his morals differ from yours, that means he is not worth saving? That he is worth less as a human being because of that?
This is exactly what happens when you act like morals are up to each person. You just have people saying what they feel is what is right. And that was his point with the reference to pedophilia and such. A child molester thinks that pedophilic acts are perfectly moral. Do we then act like their morals are just as valid? Of course not.
The idea that everyone’s morals are completely valid is clearly not true. Otherwise you guys wouldn’t be upset at the Pope, thinking he said something immoral. You clearly do not believe that everyone is entitled to their own morals.
I can see your argument that a pet is more defenseless. In some cases, I could see that meaning that saving your pet is more moral. I could even see an argument that saving a particularly evil person’s life might not be better than saving a pet. Those could, in some circumstances, tip morality in favor of saving a pet.
I also know that, in a crisis, we don’t always think the clearest. So I would not hate on someone who saved their pet. Your actions at that point are mostly instinct, anyways.
But I cannot see any valid argument for why a pet’s life is worth more than any other human’s life. I cannot see how you think any human who is dying would prefer you to save your pet instead of them. And, unless you are a vegan, you clearly don’t think that animal lives matter as much as human lives in general. Plus, if it were true, then it would be moral to kill a stranger to save your pet.
I don’t agree with Chessic Sense on much at all. And I don’t agree with his broader point. And he definitely could have made his point in a kinder way. But I have to agree with him that morality is not merely up to the individual. And I have to agree that, in general, your pet’s life, no matter how much you live him, is not worth more than some innocent person’s life.
And I must argue that it is extremely dangerous to start devaluing the lives of people who argue with you or are mean to you. He is right that those who argue such things cannot argue the moral high ground.
My interpretation of the above is that you are angry, and saying things that come off a lot worse than they should. I do not judge you. But I do argue you are wrong. Not merely that my morals disagree with yours–but that you are wrong.
This. But people shouldn’t let someone ( such as a pope or other) tell them they should or should not procreate.
I respect that you tried to be fair and even-handed, but I think you give @Chessic_Sense far, FAR too much credit. The reason I blew up at him isn’t that he disagreed on our comparative morals (which I explicitly allowed), but his follow up statement:
That shit is indefensible. That is the ‘moral majority’ saying if you disagree with MY morals, you and any who agree with you should be locked up. Even allowing for a moderate degree of exaggeration given it’s the Pit, this is waaaay beyond the pale of anyone I want to ever associate with, or god forbid, risk MY life saving.
And I agree that comparative morality is a scale, in general, there are shared beliefs and values in a culture, but different individuals can and SHOULD put different weights on the elements they find important. We’re in a so-called culture war in the US right now because different groups are obsessive on different values. Even so, I don’t think any of the major groups have seen sexualization of children as a worthwhile value. To use that metaphor in a nuanced discussion is inarguably the actions of a bad-faith actor.
The duty to others is a part of living in a society. You do have a duty to the stranger. The idea of every person for themselves is the talk of people like Ayn Rand and such, who think altruism is evil, when it is the exact opposite. Heck, it’s the actual moral of antimaskers and antivaxers, who believe they have no duty to do even the smallest of things to protect others.
Now, of course, this is a general concept. I’m not saying that other factors do not factor into specific situations. But the idea that you have no duty to your fellow humans is definitely wrong. That is the argument of those who harm others for their own benefit.
As for pets, well, see my argument above. You do have a duty of care to your pets. You have taken on responsibility for them. But that’s an additional responsibility, on top of your responsibilities to society.
Even if you see it as “keeping your word,” it’s moral to break you word to avoid breaking other moral duties, like that to your fellow humans.
The vehemence of the OP is not warranted by the mildness of the Pope’s remarks. There is a bit of over-protestation going on here.
Without children humanity dies out and things start to get hard for us as we get older without a younger generation coming through. Some would see that as a bad thing. Personally I don’t have anything against those who don’t have children. However it is a point on which reasonable people can differ.
Also, saying “don’t say things that make me feel guilty” is pissweak. Have the courage of your convictions. I don’t think you are doing anything wrong, OP, but as a matter of principle, expressing an opinion that someone is doing something wrong should not be verboten because it makes them feel guilty.
Great. So if a person who doesn’t want kids is guilted into having them, and consequently ruins the kids’ lives by raising them resentfully, that’s just peachy, right? Because someone was right to tell them they were selfish for not wanting kids, because that was their honest opinion?