Category Archives: Core philosophy

Moral Harm and Non-being

I am beginning a series of posts the goal of which is to get some understanding of the basic Christian framework called the Paschal Mystery. The Paschal Mystery is the teaching that the Incarnation of God as Jesus and Jesus’ subsequent suffering, death and resurrection radically transformed the human condition. These events restored the human condition from a fallen one in which at best human life had no greater destiny than that we typically attribute to bedbugs to an original one in which human beings rise after biological death to live eternally with God. Human beings were in the fallen condition because they had chosen some act which they ought not have chosen and so they were no longer as they ought to be.

The phrases with the moral terms are emphasized because they gave me the clue on how to clarify and modify concepts to become somewhat clearer about the Paschal mystery. Moral concepts will be those under closest analysis and modification. This post focuses on a notion of moral harm.

What is moral harm? Distinguish moral harm from natural harm which here I will treat as medical harm. I use “medical” to have a working definition of natural harm. The medical harm of an act is a physical or psychological condition brought about by an act for which the person has a high probability of being compensated by medical insurance. So if you assault a person and break his arm, that person can very likely win a suit for damages from you. Similarly, if a man seduces a boy into sexual acts medical professionals will almost certainly testify that the boy has suffered psychological harm for which he should be compensated.

Moral harm is not the medical harm which an immoral act causes. Certainly we cannot say that an act is not immoral if it causes no medical harm. Moral harm is the harm a person inflicts on himself when he chooses contrary to a moral law. For instance, there is a moral law that you ought not testify that you saw a man at the scene of a crime when you clearly realize that he was somewhere else. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor!” The moral harm he inflicts upon himself comes from choosing to break the moral law. Moral laws specify how we ought to be. By choosing to break the moral law he chooses to not be the kind of person he ought to be. Moral harm is not being as you ought to be. Harm can be called an evil. So a notion of harm or evil as non-being is being used: non-being as a departure from what ought to be. The non-being which is evil may be an actual state of affairs. But it is a state of non-being, moral non-being, because of its difference from what ought to be.

This notion of moral harm or evil as non-being will be fundamental in posts trying to get clearer about the Paschal mystery. This will include introduction of a notion of Satan!

My book explores the notion of moral evil in conjunction with an examination of male sexual morality.

My book Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $3.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $3.99 plus $3.71 for shipping and handling per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.

Truth and the Parmenidean Postulate

A translation of the 5th fragment of the writings of the 6th century BC Greek philosopher Parmenides reads “For it is the same thing that can be thought as can be.” I interpret this fragment as telling us that the structure of thought is the structure of reality. It is the Parmenidean postulate. It reassures us that our thinking can lead us to the truth. The truth is what there is as it is apart from our thinking. Accurate expression of our thoughts are the true statements.

I include posts on truth as reminders amongst my blog posts on my stance towards our ability to get the truth and express it well. In the so-called Blogsphere there are posts accusing some, especially those with views which could be classified as left of center as denying truth or dismissing our ability to get it. It is uninteresting to accuse someone of denying that there is truth and then dismiss them as inconsistently asserting that it is true that nothing is true. It is interesting and helpful for understanding our own stance toward truth to figure out how there could be stances which in some consistent way hold that there is no truth. This post then develop previous posts on truth:Pope Francis’ nominalism and Truth skepticism

Here I want to connect acceptance of truth with theories of universals and the Parmenidean postulate. Theories of universals are outlined in the post on Pope Francis’ nominalism.

Realists accept the Parmenidean postulate. The structure of thought has universal terms and then so does reality apart from thought. Realists about universals are realists about truth. I conjecture that most accusations that someone is not a realist about truth are based on thinking their opponent is not a realist about universals. Their opponents refuse to be pinned down to giving exact definitions.

Conceptualist do not hold the Parmenidean postulate. We place a weaker demand –postulate-on our reason. We postulate that thought is suitable for leading humans to think of reliable ways of operating in reality. We concede that reality may have a different structure than our thinking. But we do not concede that there is no truth. True thoughts are those on reliable ways to operate in reality. Conceptualist set aside the task of trying to uncover the structure of reality apart from thought. That would be metaphysics.

Nominalist do not hold the Parmenidean postulate. Nominalists have a metaphysical theory on the structure of reality apart from thought. They hold that reality is simply many separate things. All talk of their interconnection distorts their separateness. But thinking is always about interconnections. Hence, nominalists do not accept any thoughts as true. By simply stating their metaphysical view without asserting it as true nominalists can consistently present their view. True is a necessarily empty category for noninalists.

So, if someone wants to make a philosophically strong case that someone else rejects truth, they should struggle to make a case their opponent is a nominalist. If someone wants to take the stance that there is truth which is properly expressed by our thoughts they should accept and defend the Parmenidean postulate.

I have written a book defending traditional sexual morality as a conceptualist. Thus I think daily practice will show the truth of traditional sexuality morality.
My book Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $3.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $3.99 plus $3.71 for shipping and handling per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.