Masomo 21 Kwa Ajili ya karne ya 21: Ukweli Kinyonga, Kuna Ukweli Bandia Unaodumu Milele

[Nundu_Tanzania]

Sawa. Lkn mbona maelezo yako ya awali kuhusu uadilifu wa mtu yanaegemea kwenye proportionalism?

Umesema kuwa haiwezekani kupima uadilifu wa mtu kwa kuangalia tendo moja moja, bali maisha yake over a period of time.

Ndio maana nikakuomba ufanye moral analysis ya tendo moja la kuiba ili nione approach yako.

Katika waraka wa Humanae Vitae papa alitumia maneno "principle of totality". Lkn ni kitu kile kile.

Kwa ufupi nimekuelewa.

Mimi naikataa moral proportionalism, aka principle of totality.

Kanuni hii inahalalisha kila uovu unaoweza kufikirika hapa duniani.

Mfano, kwa mujibu wa principle of totality, ni afadhali mtu mmoja afe ili kuikoa kikundi cha watu kumi.

Madikteta wote wa dunia walitumia mbinu huu.

Moral proportionism ni tofauti na

Sawa. Lkn mbona maelezo yako ya awali kuhusu uadilifu wa mtu yanaegemea kwenye proportionalism?

Umesema kuwa haiwezekani kupima uadilifu wa mtu kwa kuangalia tendo moja moja, bali maisha yake over a period of time.

Ndio maana nikakuomba ufanye moral analysis ya tendo moja la kuiba ili nione approach yako.

Katika waraka wa Humanae Vitae papa alitumia maneno "principle of totality". Lkn ni kitu kile kile.

Kwa ufupi nimekuelewa.

Mimi naikataa moral proportionalism, aka principle of totality.

Kanuni hii inahalalisha kila uovu unaoweza kufikirika hapa duniani.

Mfano, kwa mujibu wa principle of totality, ni afadhali mtu mmoja afe ili kuikoa kikundi cha watu kumi.

Madikteta wote wa dunia walitumia mbinu huu.

Moral proportionism ni tofauti na Principle of totality. Read carefully you will find the different.

Kinachotazamwa hapo ni tendo au jambo lenyewe should purely be moral good.

Zaidi ni kuwa hicho ambacho, tuseme kwa mfano, kinauawa, ili kuokoa vingine au wengine lazima kithibitike wazi kuwa kuondolewa kwake kutafanya vilivyobaki vingine kuwa bora zaidi. Destruction will not interfere natural laws.

Kuhusu kwa mfano, kuua mtu mmoja ili kuokoa watu wengine. Hili ni jambo zito hivyo linataka uthibitisho wa wazi wa maadili.

Lazima kufahamu kwa hakika huyo anayetakiwa kuuawa anaharibu maadili kwa kiasi.

Kuwepo kwake kunaleta kasoro gani kimaadili?

Tendo la kumuua huyo mtu ni la kimaadili?

Je, kuuawa kwake hakutaleta kasoro kimaadili?

Akiuawa kasoro ya kimaadili itakuwa imeondoka?

Ni lazima auwawe kama njia pekee ya kuondoa kasoro ya kimaadili?

 

[Mama Amon]

Najua unazungumzia 'Formal' education,Swali langu je Informal education haina 'mantiki'? Kuna watu wako na uzoefu wa kutosha katika maisha na kama msemo pendwa 'experience is a best teacher',

Ni kweli Kuna watu wako na uzoefu wa kutosha katika maisha na kama msemo pendwa 'experience is a best teacher'. Hata hivyo, tunaweza kuweka malengo ambayo ni "SMART" kupitia formal education pekee. Hatuna namna ya kupima iwapo mtu aliyepata informal education amesoma na kufaulu kwa kiasi gani.

Kuna mzaha mmoja: kwamba, mwenda wazimu ni mtu ambaye amepoteza uwezo wa kufikiri kimantiki, ama kwa sababu zilizoanzia ndani ya kichwa chake au nje. Watu wengi waliopitia informal and formal education hawana uwezo wa kufikiri kimantiki. Kwa hiyo, huwa swali linaulizwa: Hivi Tanzania kuna vichaa wangapi? Tafakari.

 

[Mama Amon]

Moral proportionism ni tofauti na Principle of totality. Read carefully you will find the different.

Hapana. Kimsingi, hakuna tofauti kati ya Moral proportionism na Principle of totality. Nimesoma haya mambo mawili kwa zaidi ya mara moja. Mwalimu wangu mkuu kuhusu kanuni hizi ni Hayati Askofu Denis Hurley wa Durban, Afrika Kusini. Nitamnukuu kwa kirefu hapa chini ili mimi na wewe tuweze kwenda pamoja:

"...we have no general principle in our moral theology dealing with situations in which right and duty clash. We have quite a number of particular principles. For instance, though killing a man is wrong, we have justified killing in self-defence. The principle here seems to be that the aggressor surrenders his right to life. Though stealing is wrong, we allow a man in grave danger to take the property of another, on the principle that the right to life of the man in danger overrides the other's right to private property. Though mutilation is wrong we justify surgical operation on the principle of totality. Though lying is wrong we justify mental reservation on some principle or other that is not too clear. And finally there is the principle of double effect which allows us to perform an action which has both a good and evil effect, provided the good is proportionate to the evil. By finding a particular principle in each case we escape the imputation that we are allowing the [good] end to justify the [evil] means. There is nothing more frightful than killing a man, yet we have found a principle to justify killing in self-defence. There are less heinous things, like birth-control, obtaining male semen for a medical test, sterilisation of a woman whose life may be threatened by a pregnancy. But in these cases we have found no particular principle to let us off the hook. So we have to stand rigidly by the [good] end not justifying the [evil] means. How is it that we may kill, but we may not do these other things?" (Denis Hurley, "A New Moral Principle: When Right and Duty Clash," Furrow 17 (1966) 619-22, at 619-620)

Baada ya kujiuliza swali hilo, Askofu Hurley aliamua kubuni kanuni mpya ya kimaadili, aliyoifafanua kama ifuatavyo:

"I have a duty to respect the life of another but I have a right to preserve my own Ufe. If someone attacks me, my right to life clashes with my duty to respect the life of my assailant. My right predominates. I have a duty to respect the property of another but I have a right to preserve my life. If my life is in danger, my right to life clashes with my duty to respect the other's property. My right predominates. I have a duty to preserve my bodily integrity but I have a right to preserve my life. If an infected organ threatens my life, there is a clash between duty and right, and the right predominates. I have a duty to tell the truth, but I have a right to keep a secret. The duty clashes with the right and the right predominates. I am faced with the prospect of performing an action which will have both a good effect and an evil effect. I have a right to the good effect, a duty to avoid the evil one. In the clash between right and duty the right predominates. There is a common element running through these cases--a clash between a duty and a right, in which the right predominates. Would we be justified in generalizing this into a principle? Could we say, for instance, that, whenever the exercise of a right involves the infringement of an obligation, the obligation ceases? Clearly this statement needs qualification, for not any right involves the cessation of any obligation. (Ibid. p. 620)

Baada ya tafakari ndefu, Hurley anaendeleza mawazo yake kwa kutaja masharti mawili ya kuiwekea mipaka kanuni yake. Sharti la kwanza ni kama ifuatavyo:

"In the first place there must be some proportion... between good effect and evil effect [which] has always been insisted upon in the application of the principle of double effect. Proportion is equally necessary in the proposed principle we are discussing here. A man, for instance, could not in conscience insist on his right to smoke in a place where he could cause an explosion resulting in death and severe damage to property. So there must be due proportion between the right and the obligation." (ibid. p. 620)

Na sharti la pili ni hili:

"Secondly, it appears that there must be a necessary connection between the exercise of the right and the infringement of the obligation, that is, it must be impossible to exercise the right without infringing the obligation. One may not claim, for instance, that, because one has the right to use a sidewalk, one may push somebody else off it. This necessary connection between the exercise of a right and the infringement of an obligation is essential if we are to respect the principle that the end does not justify the means." (ibid. p. 621)

Hatimaye Hurley anaweka bayana hitimisho lake hivi:

"This principle must remain--the [good] end does not justify the [evil] means. But perhaps we have an equally important principle to balance it and to mollify its rigidities, namely: when the infringement of an obligation is necessarily involved in the exercise of a proportionate right the obligation ceases. I call this the principle of the overriding right...the principle actually throws light on the [the traditional concept of of the intrinsically evil act]. A human act is [intrinsically evil] ... only when the obligation of avoiding it can never be overriden by any right..." (Ibid. p. 621-622)

Baada ya kubuni kanuni hii, Hurley alikumbana na ukosoaji mkubwa toka kwa wanazuoni wenzake. Katika kujibu ukosoaji huo alieleza jinsi kanuni yake inavyopaswa kutumika kwa njia ya mifano kama ifuatavyo:

"The principle of overriding right boils down to this. Situations arise in life when a right clashes with a duty. For instance, when I am attacked, my right to life clashes with my duty to respect the life of another; when I am in dire need, my right to life clashes with my duty to respect the property of another; when an infected organ threatens my life, my right to life clashes with my duty to preserve my bodily integrity; when I am bound by secrecy, my right to preserve the secret may clash with my duty to tell the truth. In all these cases we admit that the right predominates over the duty. This seems to indicate that we need to formulate the general principle underlying these various particular convictions. The formulation I proposed was: "When the infringement of an obligation is necessarily involved in the exercise of a proportionate right, the obligation ceases." I suggested that this principle might be useful in solving the moral problems of contraception, sterilization, and transplantation of organs from living people." (Denis Hurley, In Defense of the Principle Of Overriding Right, Theological Studies 29 (1968)301-309, at 301)

Profesa Kippley (1991), aliboresha hoja ya Askofu Hurley kwa kukosoa misamiati yake na kisha kuikataa, kwa kusema yafuatayo:

The principle had been criticized by Richard A. McCormick, S.J., who did not see it as the answer to the contraception dilemma.13 My own criticism is that I think Archbishop Hurley makes a false antithesis between rights and duties. In each of the examples he uses, it would have been just as proper to speak of the clash between my duty “to preserve my own life” and my duty “to respect the life of another”; my duty “to preserve my life” and “my duty to preserve my bodily integrity”; my duty “to preserve the secret” and my duty “to tell the truth”. I don’t think this is just a matter of splitting hairs but of trying to put the contrasting elements of a human situation in terms of a common denominator so that evaluation can proceed more rationally and without the emotional connotations involved in the statement of a dilemma in terms of rights versus duties. Archbishop Hurley criticizes the application of the principle of totality to the corporate person of the family. He wonders: Is there “anything to prevent its being applied to the corporate person of the state? Unless it is very carefully formulated, it may very well become a principle of totalitarianism. We should beware, therefore, of invoking the principle of totality in respect of collectivities until we have discovered a foolproof formulation—which I suspect will be very hard to find.” The same criticism is to be made of his own formulation, and he admits as much. Just as the principle of totality is accepted in theory by all but disputed in its application, so also with the principle of the overriding right (or duty). (John F. Kippley, Sex And The Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality, Second Edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press;1991, p.145-6)

Ni kweli kwamba, Askofu Hurley aliikosoa principle of totality akisema kuwa, pamoja na kwamba inatimika kwenye ngazi ya mtu mmoja mmoja, haipaswi kutumika kwenye taasisi. Alitimia maneno haya:

"Before the contraception debate, the principle of totality applied only to physical persons and not to the corporate person of the family. It could be formulated as follows. When a part of the body endangers the whole, the part may be sacrificed for the whole. It was on this principle of totality that surgical operations
were justified. There has been a tendency in some quarters to say that the same principle can be applied to the family to justify contraception. The application would be: when that part of the family which is the integrity of the generative process endangers the family, it can be sacrificed for the good of the whole family. There may be something valuable in this approach, but it is not without difficulties. The main problem is that of formulating the principle in such a way that it will not run wild. In the case of the family, we are dealing with a corporate person made up of physical persons, father, mother, and children, who enjoy their own individual rights. Any formulation of the principle of totality applicable to the family must not allow applications contrary to the rights of the members. Thus we cannot say: when a part endangers the whole, that part may be sacrificed for the whole. This would justify the abandonment or killing of one child for the good of the rest of the family. Furthermore, if the principle of totality can be applied to the corporate person of the family, is there anything to prevent its being applied to the corporate person of the state? Unless it is very carefully formulated, it may very well become a principle of totalitarianism. We should beware, therefore, of invoking the principle of totality in respect of collectivities until we have discovered a foolproof formulation—which I suspect will be very hard to find. "(Denis Hurley, In Defense of the Principle Of Overriding Right, Theological Studies 29 (1968), 301-309, at 304-5)

Ni bahati mbaya ni kwamba, ukosoaji ulioufanywa na Askofu Hurley kuhusu principle of totality unahusu pia principle of overriding right aliyokuwa anajaribu kuibuni na kuitetea katika andiko lile lile.

Hata hivyo, udadavuzi wake bado una faida moja. Umesaidia kutuonyesha kwamba, kanuni kama vile principle of totality, principle of compromise, principle of the lesser evil, principle of the greater good, principle of double effect, principle of moderation, na kadhalika, ni familia tofauti za kanuni zinazoanguka ndani ya ukoo mmoja wa kanuni iitwayo principle of overriding right.

 

[Girland]

Ni kweli Kuna watu wako na uzoefu wa kutosha katika maisha na kama msemo pendwa 'experience is a best teacher'. Hata hivyo, tunaweza kuweka malengo ambayo ni "SMART" kupitia formal education pekee. Hatuna namna ya kupima iwapo mtu aliyepata informal education amesoma na kufaulu kwa kiasi gani.

Kuna mzaha mmoja: kwamba, mwenda wazimu ni mtu ambaye amepoteza uwezo wa kufikiri kimantiki, ama kwa sababu zilizoanzia ndani ya kichwa chake au nje. Watu wengi waliopitia informal and formal education hawana uwezo wa kufikiri kimantiki. Kwa hiyo, huwa swali linaulizwa: Hivi Tanzania kuna vichaa wangapi? Tafakari.

Utaidefend point yako kwa muktadha wa Siasa za Tanzania?

Hapa Wanasiasa wengi wana uzoefu na exposure na wachache sana wana 'Political Formal Education',huoni ni wakati wa kukubaliana na mimi kuwa 'experience ' over time inaweza kutosheleza mahitaji ya nyanja fulani.

 

[Kiranga]

Nimekisoma hiki kitabu, pia vitabu vyake (Dr. Harari) vingine "Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow" na "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind".

Dr. Harari namfuatilia kwa karibu sana akitoa kitabu kipya na clear reading list yangu nimsome.

 

[Mama Amon]

Nimekisoma hiki kitabu, pia vitabu vyake (Dr. Harari) vingine "Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow" na "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind".

Dr. Harari namfuatilia kwa karibu sana akitoa kitabu kipya na clear reading list yangu nimsome.

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."

 

[Nundu_Tanzania]

Hapana. Kimsingi, hakuna tofauti kati ya Moral proportionism na Principle of totality. Nimesoma haya mambo mawili kwa zaidi ya mara moja. Mwalimu wangu mkuu kuhusu kanuni hizi ni Hayati Askofu Denis Hurley wa Durban, Afrika Kusini. Nitamnukuu kwa kirefu hapa chini ili mimi na wewe tuweze kwenda pamoja

The views of Bishop Hurley as your reference and teacher, and other in the Church on moral proportionalism is false translation.

Basically, Bishop's argument and other in the Church originates from Saint Thomas Aquinas on what is called "Aquinas and the Historical Roots Of Proportionalism."

Bishop Hurley and other developed their arguments from Aquinas teachings on moral proportionalism.

Popal, Saint John Paul II on "Veritatis Splendor" clarifies the truthfulness, the natural laws.

For the purpose of understanding and also to see the false translation made by Bishop Hurley and other in the Church on Aquinas and the Historical Roots Of Proportionalism as well as the clarification on Principle of totality, please visit at: Philosophy | College of Arts and Sciences | The University of San Francisco

 

[hearly]

Jamaa (Muandishi ) ni Big brain Sana

 

[hearly]

Duuu kazi ipo.

Hatari jamaa ana hoja nzito nzito

 

[hearly]

Kuna mshikaji alisema atarudi hadi leo tunangoja

Ndio masimulizi yenyewe ya kutungwa hayo kama ilivyo pesa za dola

 

[hearly]

Kwa kweli sina mpango wa kukitafsiri chote.
Muda, breakfast, lunch, dinner, umeme, kodi ya pango la ofisi, etc etc ni vikwzo tele.
Hiyo sura niliipa kipaumbele kwa vile ilikuwa inahitajika sana kueleza wazo langu muhimu: vita dhidi ya disinformation in post-truth era.

Daahh umetunyima madini Sana ungeendelea tu kwa kweli Tungepata Elimu kubwa Sana

Vitabu kama hivi ktk Nchi za Africa kama Tz I bet lazima kipigwe ban maana kita changia kuwatoa watu wengi Sana kto utumwa wa fikira

 

[hearly]

kudai kwako "uchambuzi yakinifu" wa uhusiano kati ya soda za Coca Cola na magonjwa, ni ushahidi mwingine wa dunia inaishi na kuamini ukweli wa kutunga na kubuni.

Kuhusu dini, hana cha kuthibitisha (kuwa ni ukweli wa kutunga) kwa kuwa hakuna ushahidi wa kihistoria, sayansi au hata wa kimantiki dhidi ya yasemwayo. Utathibitisha nini apo?

 

[Mama Amon]

The views of Bishop Hurley as your reference and teacher, and other in the Church on moral proportionalism is false translation. Basically, Bishop's argument and other in the Church originates from Saint Thomas Aquinas on what is called "Aquinas and the Historical Roots Of Proportionalism." Bishop Hurley and other developed their arguments from Aquinas teachings on moral proportionalism. Popal, Saint John Paul II on "Veritatis Splendor" clarifies the truthfulness, the natural laws. For the purpose of understanding and also to see the false translation made by Bishop Hurley and other in the Church on Aquinas and the Historical Roots Of Proportionalism as well as the clarification on Principle of totality, please visit at: Philosophy | College of Arts and Sciences | The University of San Francisco

Nimesoma makala yote "Aquinas and the Historical Roots Of Proportionalism" iliyoandikwa na Profesa Thomas A. Cavanaugh. Ni uchambuzi murua. Nimeelewa na kukubali uchambuzi wa Cavanaugh na ule wa Papa, ambapo wote wawili wanaunganishwa na hoja hii:

1. According to the Bible (Romans 3:7-8), if an action X is intrinsically evil, then it is wrong for everyone, everywhere, and everytime to intentionally chose and perform it as a means to pursue a good end;
2. According to the principles of natural law, action X is intrinsically evil;
3. Thus, performing action X is immoral everywhere, everytime and for every one.

Kulingana na mazingira yaliyozaa principle of overriding right ya Askofu Hurley, kitendawili alichokuwa anajribu kujibu kilikuwa juu ya usahihi wa premise ya 2 hapo juu. Swali lilikuwa je, contraception ni uovu wa kudumu bila kujali tofauti za mahali,wakati na hali ya mtendaji (intrinsic evil) au ni uovu wa mpito kulingana na mazingira ya muda, mahali na hali ya mtendaji (extrinsic evil).

Askofu Hurley alipendekeza kuheshimu fundisho la Mt. Paul kwa kupendekeza kuwa Paul anaongelea intrinsic evils, na kwamba matumizi ya kingamimba ni extrinsic evil. Kwa njia hii akaanza kutafuta madharia ya kufafanua ni katika mazingira yapi matumizi ya kingamimba ni halali.

Kwa kiwango hiki, ni wazi kwamba kanuni yake ya "principle of overriding right" inaanguka katika kundi moja na kanuni kama vile the principle of totality, the principle of compromise, the principle of the lesser evil, the principle of the greater good, the principle of double effect, etc. Zote hizi ni kanuni za kuhalalisha tabia ambazo uadilifu wake unategemea mazingira ya lini, wapi na nani mhusika. (Fr. Richard Mc cormick, Of Principles And Decisions, Notes On Moral Theology: January-June, 1967, Pp.749-800.)

Tatizo hili amelitaja vizuri Profesa Thomas A. Cavanaugh mwenyewe katika andiko lingine kwenye ukurasa ule ule wa mtandaoni, yaani, "Abuses of Double Effect, Anscombe’s Principle of Side Effects, and A (Sound) Account of Duplex Effectus." Profesa Cavanaugh anasema:

"I propose the following as a more general account of double effect. An otherwise licit act effecting good and bad is licit if the agent: (1) intends the good while not intending the bad (either as an end or as a means), (2) effects the least bad practically necessary ..., and (3) has a greater or comparable obligation to pursue the good than to avoid effecting the bad at issue. The above conditions are each necessary and together suffice to render licit an act of double effect.

"Here, we find ... a difficulty concerning the fourth condition: if we adopt that one principle, of the balance of good over evil in the expected upshot, then it becomes obscure why we could not do this where the causation of death was perfectly intentional. Of course, there are diverse ... construals of, 'greater or comparable obligation.' Not all concur with the more straightforwardly Consequentialist, 'balance of good over evil,' way of putting the point. (Cavanaugh, Thomas A., "Abuses of Double Effect, Anscombe’s Principle of Side Effects, and A (Sound) Account of Duplex Effectus" (2015). Philosophy. Paper 51, at p.18-19).

Shida iko hapo palipopigiliwa mistari. Utaona kuwa hata Profesa Cavanaugh amekimbia mjada juu ya utaratibu wa kimaadili wa kutafuta uwiano kati ya asilimia ya matendo mema na asilimia ya matendo mabaya unaoongelewa kwenye doctrine of double effect.

Swali linazuka: Ni kwa kiasi gani Consequentialists na Deontologists wanatofautiana na kukubaliana katika kutafsiri maneno "greater or comparable obligation" kama yanavyopatikana ktk doctrine of double effect, yupi yuko sahihi zaidi na kwa nini?

Kadiri suala la kitendo cha "kukinga mimba" kinavyohusika, nilifanya utafiti mdogo na kugundua mambo kadhaa. Utafiti ulianzia kwenye hoja ya awali ambayo nainukuu tena hapa chini:

1. According to the Bible (Romans 3:7-8), if an action X is intrinsically evil, then it is wrong for everyone, everywhere, and everytime to intentionally chose and perform it as a means to pursue a good end;
2. According to the principles of natural law, action X is intrinsically evil;
3. Thus, performing action X is immoral everywhere, everytime and for every one.

Nilibaini kuwa, wakati wa mijadala ya kina Askofu Hurley, maneno "action X", yalikuwa yanamaanisha kitendo cha "kukinga mimba." Kuhusu kitendo hiki nilibaini mambo kadhaa.

Kwanza ni fasili yake kwa mujibu wa maana pana:

"[Contraception is an] intentional prevention of ovulation, fertilization of an egg cell, or implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall through the use of various drugs, devices, sexual practices, or surgical procedures." (Yourdictionary.com)​

Fasili hii maana yake ni kwamba:

"[contraception is] any [positive or negative] action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end [in itself] or as a means [to some further end]." (My definition inspired by Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae 1968, par. 16).​

Pili nilibaini kuwa, katika mipaka ya fasili hii, maneno "natural cycles" na "natural rhythms" yanarejea:

"[Natural contraception is an] intentional prevention of ovulation, fertilization of an egg cell, or implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall through the use of ... [natural] sexual practices." (Yourdictionary.com)​

Fasili hii maana yake ni kwamba:

"[natural contraception is] any [negative] action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation whether as an end [in itself] or as a means [to some further end].." (My definition inspired by Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae 1968, par. 16).​

Tatu, nikahitimisha kwamba, kwa hiyo, nikahitimisha kuwa, kitendo cha "kukingamimba" kwa kutumia mzunguko asilia wa hedhi ni halali kimaadili.

Nne, nikakumbuka kuwa, kitendo chenye uovu wa mpito (extrinsically evil act) ni kitendo ambacho hali yake ya kimaadili (ama hali ya uovu ya hali ya wema) inabadilika kutokana na mabadiliko ya mazingira ya muda, mahali na hali ya mtendaji (extrinsically evil act).

Na tano, nikahitimisha kuwa, kwa ujumla, kitendo cha kutumia "kingamimba" ni kitendo ambacho uovu wake unatokana na mazingira ya muda, mahali na hali ya mtendaji (extrinsically evil act).

Kwa kiwango hiki, kina Askofu Hurley, walikuwa na sababu nzuri ya kufanya utafiti wa kuangalia ni katika mazingira gani kitendo cha kutumia kingamimba kitakuwa halali bila kukiuka matakwa ya Biblia na matakwa na maadili asilia.

Lakini, kuna tatizo linaloanzia kweney fasili. Kwa mujibu wa Papa Paul VI (1968):

"[positive contraception is] any [positive] action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end [in itself] or as a means [to some further end]." (Recognised by Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae 1968, par. 16).​

Pili nilibaini kuwa, katika mipaka ya fasili hii, maneno "natural cycles" na "natural rhythms" yanakuwa nje ya fasili ya Papa kuhusu maana ya contraception kwa kuwa yanamaanisha kitu tofauti, yaani

"[negative contraception is] any "[negative] action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation— whether as an end [in itself] or as a means [to some further end]." (Not recognized by Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae 1968, para. 16).​

Kama hivi ndivyo, ni wazi kuwa Papa anaongelea maana finyu ya contraception as a positive act wakati jamii pana inaopngelea ukweli mpana kwamba contraception is either a positive or negative act which is extrinsically evil.

Kwa nini Kanisa linaamua kufanya ujanja wa kucheza na maneno namna hii? Nadhani unajua vizuri kwamba fallacy of equivocation ni ukiukaji wa misingi ya tafakari za kirazini.

Lakini pia, katika maan hiyo finyu, ni kweli kwamba, kwa mujibu wa nadharia ya maadili asilia contraception is intrinsically evil?

 

[Nundu_Tanzania]

1. According to the Bible (Romans 3:7-8), if an action X is intrinsically evil, then it is wrong for everyone, everywhere, and everytime to intentionally chose and perform it as a means to pursue a good end;
2. According to the principles of natural law, action X is intrinsically evil;
3. Thus, performing action X is immoral everywhere, everytime and for every one.

I like this way you presented and arrangement of your points. It is impressing. Congratulations!

Kanisa ndio mamlaka pekee duniani ya ufundishaji na kufafanua mafundisho ya imani na maadili.

Linapokuja suala la ukweli na maadili asilia Kanisa katoliki halisemi uongo.

Kile Kanisa katoliki linakataa kuwa kisifanywe, hata kama kitu hicho kinaleta manufaa au ni kwa ajili ya afya, kimaadili yaani kiamaumbile au asili ni kosa.

Watu wengi hutujifunzi asili ilivyo. Hatufahamu chochote kuhusu maumbile. Hii ni hatari.

Tendo lolote linalo ingilia au kufanya mabadiliko ya kiasili au kimaumbile ni kosa, bila kujali linaleta ufanisi gani.

Suala la vizibiti mimba kwa lenyewe bila kuangalia sababu, mazingira au ufanisi ni kosa kiasili. Kwa sababu linaingilia utendaji asili.

Kwenye hili la vizibiti mimba, asili yenyewe imeweka siku za kutunga mimba na siku zisizo za kutunga mimba.

Kwenye kila kitu asili imeweka utaratibu ambao ni bora na ni maadili.

Kwangu Kanisa katoliki mafundisho yake ya imani na maadili yanapita udadisi, uzoefu na utafiti binafsi wa kibinadamu kuhusu ulimwengu.

 

[Mama Amon]

I like this way you presented and arrangement of your points. It is impressing. Congratulations!

Bila shaka unaongelea hoja hii:

1. According to the Bible (Romans 3:7-8), if an action X is intrinsically evil, then it is wrong for everyone, everywhere, and everytime to intentionally chose and perform it as a means to pursue a good end;
2. According to the principles of natural law, action X is intrinsically evil;
3. Thus, performing action X is immoral everywhere, everytime and for every one.

Pia, nadhani kwa neno "Kanisa" ulitaka kumaanisha Majisteria ya Kanisa Katoliki yenye mamlaka ya kufundisha masuala ya kimaadili.

Kama ndivyo, Majisteria ya Kanisa Katoliki inatoa utetezi gani kuhusu dokezo la pili hapo juu, endapo maneno "action X" yatamaanisha "kutumia kingamimba"?

NImetafuta sana lakini sijaona.

 

[Nundu_Tanzania]

Kama hivi ndivyo, ni wazi kuwa Papa anaongelea maana finyu ya contraception as a positive act wakati jamii pana inaopngelea ukweli mpana kwamba contraception is either a positive or negative act which is extrinsically evil. Kwa nini Kanisa linaamua kufanya ujanja wa kucheza na maneno namna hii?

Tendo ambalo ndani yake ni jema haiwezekani kuwa ovu kwa sababu ya mazingira au sababu nyingine za ufanisi.

Kanisa linaposema hivyo (alivyosema Papa, Mtakatifu Yohana Paul II) linajua wazi kabisa kwamba tendo lenye wema kimaadili haliwezi kufanyika uharibifu halafu huo uhabifu ukawa ni wa wema.

 

[Nundu_Tanzania]

Lakini pia, katika maan hiyo finyu, ni kweli kwamba, kwa mujibu wa maadili asilia contraception is intrinsically evil?

Ndio ni kweli.
Sababu ni kuwa contraception interferes the natural moral laws.

 

[B R A C E L E T]

Nice article.

 

[Nundu_Tanzania]

Pia, nadhani kwa neno "Kanisa" ulitaka kumaanisha Majisteria ya Kanisa Katoliki yenye mamlaka ya kufundisha masuala ya kimaadili.

Kama ndivyo, Majisteria ya Kanisa Katoliki inatoa utetezi gani kuhusu dokezo la pili hapo juu?

NImetafuta sana lakini sijaona.

Sifahamu wewe unaelewaje Majisteria ya Kanisa Katoliki.

Ninasema hivyo kwa sababu haiwezekani kufafanua Majisteria ya Kanisa katoliki bila Papa.

Dokezo la pili ni ufafanuzi wa dokezo la pili.

 

[Fall Army Worm]

Kitabu kimenipunguza uree kiasi kikubwa,niliacha mitungi nikahamia soda na sasa naacha soda nitakunywa chai bila sukari.

Pole