4 ms·

That's a strange way to phrase things. It's a bit like saying that the Church recognizes the licitness of murder under a lawful ceiling, but that this ceiling j

That's a strange way to phrase things. It's a bit like saying that the Church recognizes the licitness of murder under a lawful ceiling, but that this ceiling just happens to be 0 per year. Interest as such is recognized as theft and therefore an injustice.

neaden 4mo ago
Well murder is similar in that it means an illegal or immoral killing. There are times (say in self defence) where it has taunt it is moral and should be legal to kill, because that isn't murder. So similar to this, it changed usury to illegal lending rather than lending.
- geye1234 4mo ago
  How far would you take this? Let's grant that the difference between murder and a just killing is what someone (maybe the guy in power) says it is, nothing more. Would you say the same about robbery? Is it only robbery to point a gun at someone and take his money if someone says it is? If yes, at what point does the distinction between one thing and another thing become real, and not just based on what some guy says?
  - neaden 4mo ago
    Well yes, there are times where it legal to take someones possessions/money such as if they owe a debt or have a legal judgement against them. In that case it could mean for instance sheriff deputies showing up at your house with guns and taking things in a manner that would be legal and not be considered robbery. When it becomes one thing or another is going to depend on your position on other things, there is a legal answer for when it becomes robbery/murder but also moral answers. I am for example a moral realist, so my answer to that would be different than someone who was a moral relativist.
fsckboy 4mo ago
>That's a strange way to phrase things. no, not really, you have to order it chronologically: charging interest was verboten and in law it was called usury. later, interest was deemed ok... but charging too much interest was to be sanctioned and usury was a handy word to use.

neaden 4mo ago

Well murder is similar in that it means an illegal or immoral killing. There are times (say in self defence) where it has taunt it is moral and should be legal to kill, because that isn't murder. So similar to this, it changed usury to illegal lending rather than lending.

geye1234 4mo ago
How far would you take this? Let's grant that the difference between murder and a just killing is what someone (maybe the guy in power) says it is, nothing more. Would you say the same about robbery? Is it only robbery to point a gun at someone and take his money if someone says it is? If yes, at what point does the distinction between one thing and another thing become real, and not just based on what some guy says?
- neaden 4mo ago
  Well yes, there are times where it legal to take someones possessions/money such as if they owe a debt or have a legal judgement against them. In that case it could mean for instance sheriff deputies showing up at your house with guns and taking things in a manner that would be legal and not be considered robbery. When it becomes one thing or another is going to depend on your position on other things, there is a legal answer for when it becomes robbery/murder but also moral answers. I am for example a moral realist, so my answer to that would be different than someone who was a moral relativist.

fsckboy 4mo ago

>That's a strange way to phrase things. no, not really, you have to order it chronologically: charging interest was verboten and in law it was called usury. later, interest was deemed ok... but charging too much interest was to be sanctioned and usury was a handy word to use.