A Treatise on Morality: need some comments

[fakename]

Principles:

(1) Don’t do evil to gain good
(2) Always do the good
(3) Avoid evil
(4) Not giving to the poor is theft
(5) One must do the greater good

Test Case:

Hypothetically, let us assume that for odd reasons supporting the poor, would lead to an economic drain that would render a country destitute. However, not supporting them would also ensure their demise but keep the country running and their are no other practical options. So here we could choose to keep the country alive, however, that would accord with principle 5 but not with principle 4 or 1. Likewise one could choose to give to the poor but that would destroy principle 5 (unless the survival of the poor is the greater good?). We see then, that the principles are contradictory on some interpretation.

Summary:

Doing good and evil is a very equivocal description since good and evil are distributed amongst all the categories of being (e.g. it is evil for a rock to be destroyed and it is good to be happy). So then there are many ways for evils and goods to conflict and cooperate amongst themselves and for one good to be another bad or for two goods to lead to an evil or any infinite array of permutations.

Therefore, there are sometimes conflicts between goods. What principles allow us to decide between such conflicts?

A new Principle:

Perhaps we should establish a new principle:

(6) that the lesser evil should prevail over the greater evil and this is just a corollary of the idea that the greater good should prevail over the lesser.

Some might say, “in cases of moral dilemmas shouldn’t we refuse to act at all?”. But even here, that action could be described as choosing the lesser evil over the greater one (the choice of permitting a greater evil to occur instead of choosing either evil at all). So self-evidently it is good to choose the lesser evil.

 

[Michael19682]

Principles:

(1) Don’t do evil to gain good
(2) Always do the good
(3) Avoid evil
(4) Not giving to the poor is theft
(5) One must do the greater good

Test Case:

Hypothetically, let us assume that for odd reasons supporting the poor, would lead to an economic drain that would render a country destitute. However, not supporting them would also ensure their demise but keep the country running and their are no other practical options. So here we could choose to keep the country alive, however, that would accord with principle 5 but not with principle 4 or 1. Likewise one could choose to give to the poor but that would destroy principle 5 (unless the survival of the poor is the greater good?). We see then, that the principles are contradictory on some interpretation.

Summary:

Doing good and evil is a very equivocal description since good and evil are distributed amongst all the categories of being (e.g. it is evil for a rock to be destroyed and it is good to be happy). So then there are many ways for evils and goods to conflict and cooperate amongst themselves and for one good to be another bad or for two goods to lead to an evil or any infinite array of permutations.

Therefore, there are sometimes conflicts between goods. What principles allow us to decide between such conflicts?

A new Principle:

Perhaps we should establish a new principle:

(6) that the lesser evil should prevail over the greater evil and this is just a corollary of the idea that the greater good should prevail over the lesser.

Some might say, “in cases of moral dilemmas shouldn’t we refuse to act at all?”. But even here, that action could be described as choosing the lesser evil over the greater one (the choice of permitting a greater evil to occur instead of choosing either evil at all). So self-evidently it is good to choose the lesser evil.

If inaction is not one of the two possibilities, i.e., the lesser or greater evil, then do nothing and avoid evil completely. Also, your arguments suppose a static universe. Things can always change to the effect that what was once a practical (as opposed to moral) good is now a practical evil. So you can like a doctor, induce vomiting to purge a poison.

Explain more.

 

[Katholish]

Principles:

(1) Don’t do evil to gain good
(2) Always do the good
(3) Avoid evil
(4) Not giving to the poor is theft
(5) One must do the greater good

Your principles #4 and #5 are wrong. Giving to the poor is good, and under certain narrow circumstances, one has a moral responsibility to such that failing to offer certain support would be unjust. It would not, however, be considered theft, and even the statement, “not giving to the poor is unjust” can’t be taken as a universal. Only in some cases is it unjust, not all.

Further, one is never morally obligated to chose the greater good if both options are morally good. If that were the case, you and I would be sinning every second of every day, because there is always something better we could be doing.

 

[Michael19682]

Your principles #4 and #5 are wrong. Giving to the poor is good, and under certain narrow circumstances, one has a moral responsibility to such that failing to offer certain support would be unjust. It would not, however, be considered theft, and even the statement, “not giving to the poor is unjust” can’t be taken as a universal. Only in some cases is it unjust, not all.

Further, one is never morally obligated to chose the greater good if both options are morally good. If that were the case, you and I would be sinning every second of every day, because there is always something better we could be doing.

Since Fakename is not responding for the moment, I would like to challenge your last statement. The saying of Jesus about a soldier asking you to carry his pack for one mile, and then you carrying it for two. The point I gathered was that there is a best case scenario. Doing double is good enough, and anything beyond that would be superfluous and really not better in any appreciable sense; like a graph that plateau’s.

 

[Katholish]

Since Fakename is not responding for the moment, I would like to challenge your last statement. The saying of Jesus about a soldier asking you to carry his pack for one mile, and then you carrying it for two. The point I gathered was that there is a best case scenario. Doing double is good enough, and anything beyond that would be superfluous and really not better in any appreciable sense; like a graph that plateau’s.

I don’t see any reason that one would read into that one line from the Sermon on the Mount that doing more than double is superfluous. Fasting for a day is good, right? Fasting for two days is better. Does that mean anything beyond two days is superfluous? Does that make fasting for 30 days silly and meaningless?

The context of this verse is that we should not take vengence on those that do us wrong, but should rather bear wrongs patiently. It has nothing to do with placing a cap on the best possible scenario.

The verse immediately preceeding it is “And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.” Mt. 5:40

Would you be commiting a sin if you did not offer your cloak as well? Would you be commiting a sin if you did not go an extra mile after you had been forced to travel one? My point is that it is better to do these things, but it is not a moral obligation. You do not sin by failing to go the extra mile.

It is the difference between saying “one should do the greater good” and “one must do the greater good.”

There is almost always a greater good you can do, that is true for saints as well as sinners. On a natural level, being good is suffient. Revelation, however, shows us that our Lord asks us to go beyond being good–He urges us to be perfect as His Heavenly Father is perfect. That is a supernatural calling, and one we need to strive for. However, that does not mean that just being “good” is somehow insufficient, which is what I have taken issue with.

 

[Pugsly]

Principles:

(1) Don’t do evil to gain good
(2) Always do the good
(3) Avoid evil
(4) Not giving to the poor is theft
(5) One must do the greater good

Test Case:

Hypothetically, let us assume that for odd reasons supporting the poor, would lead to an economic drain that would render a country destitute. However, not supporting them would also ensure their demise but keep the country running and their are no other practical options. So here we could choose to keep the country alive, however, that would accord with principle 5 but not with principle 4 or 1. Likewise one could choose to give to the poor but that would destroy principle 5 (unless the survival of the poor is the greater good?). We see then, that the principles are contradictory on some interpretation.

Summary:

Doing good and evil is a very equivocal description since good and evil are distributed amongst all the categories of being (e.g. it is evil for a rock to be destroyed and it is good to be happy). So then there are many ways for evils and goods to conflict and cooperate amongst themselves and for one good to be another bad or for two goods to lead to an evil or any infinite array of permutations.

Therefore, there are sometimes conflicts between goods. What principles allow us to decide between such conflicts?

A new Principle:

Perhaps we should establish a new principle:

(6) that the lesser evil should prevail over the greater evil and this is just a corollary of the idea that the greater good should prevail over the lesser.

Some might say, “in cases of moral dilemmas shouldn’t we refuse to act at all?”. But even here, that action could be described as choosing the lesser evil over the greater one (the choice of permitting a greater evil to occur instead of choosing either evil at all). So self-evidently it is good to choose the lesser evil.

I stop reading at #4 “not giving to the poor is theft”…It sounds too thorny to bare fruit

 

[fakename]

Your principles #4 and #5 are wrong. Giving to the poor is good, and under certain narrow circumstances, one has a moral responsibility to such that failing to offer certain support would be unjust. It would not, however, be considered theft, and even the statement, “not giving to the poor is unjust” can’t be taken as a universal. Only in some cases is it unjust, not all.

Further, one is never morally obligated to chose the greater good if both options are morally good. If that were the case, you and I would be sinning every second of every day, because there is always something better we could be doing.

About giving to the poor, I’ve recently come to partly agree w/you since there is nothing seemingly morally bad about not feeding people considered as such. However, there is the authority of saints like St. John Chrysostom who said that a rich man who didn’t provide for the material well-being of poor people (under certain conditions like such help not making them lazy) is a thief. So on that authority I would say that poor people defined as those needing food, shelter, protection, etc. should be considered wronged if they are not helped by someone who could help them, since they are deprived of the minimum property that all men by nature need to survive.

It would only be morally neutral not to give to poor people when poverty is viewed from a purely material aspect and not from a natural rights aspect.

Lastly, I would say that one should always choose the greater of two goods even though you disprove that proposition. This is because I will amend my definition of the word “Choose”. Choice, should always be assumed to mean “practical choice” or “effective choice” and be distinguished from “any choosing by the will”. So we see, that if we have the practical ability to do a great thing, we are duty bound to do it. Yet even here, if this were true, then what is heroism or supererogation? Maybe you do have a point on this one -I’ll have to think about it.

However, is it not true that to simply say “we should choose the greater good” imply its own truth, since to object and say “we should not choose the greater good” is to implicitly choose what you think is best out of the two propositions?

 

[fakename]

If inaction is not one of the two possibilities, i.e., the lesser or greater evil, then do nothing and avoid evil completely. Also, your arguments suppose a static universe. Things can always change to the effect that what was once a practical (as opposed to moral) good is now a practical evil. So you can like a doctor, induce vomiting to purge a poison.

Explain more.

Actually I don’t know what you mean. What are you getting at?

But also, I would like to point out that my main difficulty in my scenario, for me, is that the principles I espouse contradict each other because the actions needed to fulfill those principles have matter in their definitions. As such, material things clash and combine in unexpected ways. So it is in this scenario where solving poverty will keep you from protecting the country and implicitly also, from promoting religion. All these things are by definition goods, and yet we must give up one to get the other because of the material aspects of the actions needed to attain respective ends.

 

[Michael19682]

I don’t see any reason that one would read into that one line from the Sermon on the Mount that doing more than double is superfluous. Fasting for a day is good, right? Fasting for two days is better. Does that mean anything beyond two days is superfluous? Does that make fasting for 30 days silly and meaningless?

Well, silly, not ever. Meaningless, maybe. Thomas Merton, for example, in “No Man Is An Island”, (the only work of his I have read), speaks of situations, scenarios where, with regard to love, we can fall into the trap of merely “exercising Love in our souls”. Some of the Protestant sects have, in complete misunderstanding, of course, critisized the Rosary, for example, on those grounds. The point is not that these people don’t understand supplicative prayer, but that HOW you approach something is an important, if not defining, characteristic of what it means, and, depending on what you are talking about, if it is a sin or not. “Sufficient for a day is it’s own evil” “Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no, anything more is from the evil one” are two sayings that provide the +sense+ of what I was saying. Also, when Jesus had Peter pull a coin from the mouth of a fish to pay the temple tax, it was for twice the amount, one for Jesus, one for Peter. NOT 100 times the amount, or 1000 times the amount. I think the word ‘sufficient’ holds it’s meaning. in certain contexts; whereas you are correct in many others.

 

[Michael19682]

Actually I don’t know what you mean. What are you getting at?

But also, I would like to point out that my main difficulty in my scenario, for me, is that the principles I espouse contradict each other because the actions needed to fulfill those principles have matter in their definitions. As such, material things clash and combine in unexpected ways. So it is in this scenario where solving poverty will keep you from protecting the country and implicitly also, from promoting religion. All these things are by definition goods, and yet we must give up one to get the other because of the material aspects of the actions needed to attain respective ends.

You have to be careful . If you establish a lesser of two evils premise in a material world of constant variability, you can get disastrous consequences. That is where science comes in; and known predictability. So-called reverse psychology in a philosophical case. Take a look at hurricances. It was thought that seeding them with silicone could dry them up and save millions of dollars in damage and lives also. Result, they could reverse course or take off in random directions and do even more harm. Some use the lesser of two evils argument to push for justification of venial and mortal sins; abortion, contraception, etc. They argue that it is better to reduce anxiety and guilt – as a bonus, they throw in the half baked idea that such permissiveness will somehow reduce in turn people’s reliance on these, bring them to their senses, and result eventually in a more, as opposed to less, faithful world. Yours is a tough argument. But are poor and others really unthinking, unreflective fools. They have the word of God, too.
Lk 12:54-56
Signs of the Times. 54 He also said to the crowds, “When you see [a] cloud rising in the west you say immediately that it is going to rain—and so it does; 55 and when you notice that the wind is blowing from the south you say that it is going to be hot—and so it is. 56You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky; why do you not know how to interpret the present time?

 

[Katholish]

Well, silly, not ever. Meaningless, maybe. Thomas Merton, for example, in “No Man Is An Island”, (the only work of his I have read), speaks of situations, scenarios where, with regard to love, we can fall into the trap of merely “exercising Love in our souls”. Some of the Protestant sects have, in complete misunderstanding, of course, critisized the Rosary, for example, on those grounds. The point is not that these people don’t understand supplicative prayer, but that HOW you approach something is an important, if not defining, characteristic of what it means, and, depending on what you are talking about, if it is a sin or not. “Sufficient for a day is it’s own evil” “Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no, anything more is from the evil one” are two sayings that provide the +sense+ of what I was saying. Also, when Jesus had Peter pull a coin from the mouth of a fish to pay the temple tax, it was for twice the amount, one for Jesus, one for Peter. NOT 100 times the amount, or 1000 times the amount. I think the word ‘sufficient’ holds it’s meaning. in certain contexts; whereas you are correct in many others.

So, that whole Jesus fasting for 30 days in the desert thing…meaningless?

If your whole point is to argue that things can be “sufficient” even though they do not go to extremes, then you are simply argeeing with my original point, that we are not morally obligated to always to the greater good. Fasting for two days might be better than fasting for one, but just because you only fasted for one day doesn’t mean you have sinned.

 

[Michael19682]

Katholish:

So, that whole Jesus fasting for 30 days in the desert thing…meaningless?

Yes. Meaningless… Because it was 40 days, not 30. It’s the basis of Lent.

If your whole point is to argue that things can be “sufficient” even though they do not go to extremes, then you are simply argeeing with my original point, that we are not morally obligated to always to the greater good. Fasting for two days might be better than fasting for one, but just because you only fasted for one day doesn’t mean you have sinned.

Luke 18:13

10 “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.13But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’e 14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”​

 

[fakename]

You have to be careful . If you establish a lesser of two evils premise in a material world of constant variability, you can get disastrous consequences. That is where science comes in; and known predictability. So-called reverse psychology in a philosophical case. Take a look at hurricances. It was thought that seeding them with silicone could dry them up and save millions of dollars in damage and lives also. Result, they could reverse course or take off in random directions and do even more harm. Some use the lesser of two evils argument to push for justification of venial and mortal sins; abortion, contraception, etc. They argue that it is better to reduce anxiety and guilt – as a bonus, they throw in the half baked idea that such permissiveness will somehow reduce in turn people’s reliance on these, bring them to their senses, and result eventually in a more, as opposed to less, faithful world. Yours is a tough argument. But are poor and others really unthinking, unreflective fools. They have the word of God, too.
Lk 12:54-56
Signs of the Times. 54 He also said to the crowds, “When you see [a] cloud rising in the west you say immediately that it is going to rain—and so it does; 55 and when you notice that the wind is blowing from the south you say that it is going to be hot—and so it is. 56You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky; why do you not know how to interpret the present time?

So your conclusion would be to choose not to favor either choice? But what if, the world being material, there is no practical way to remain indifferent? Yet, perhaps, it is always possible to avoid an action by mere inaction; for a conscious act needs to begin somewhere and it is up to you to will to begin an act or not. As such, there are no real restrictions on your purposeful actions.

 

[Michael19682]

So your conclusion would be to choose not to favor either choice? But what if, the world being material, there is no practical way to remain indifferent? Yet, perhaps, it is always possible to avoid an action by mere inaction; for a conscious act needs to begin somewhere and it is up to you to will to begin an act or not. As such, there are no real restrictions on your purposeful actions.

Lk 12:14

13* Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” 14 He replied to him, “Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?” 15 Then he said to the crowd, “Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one’s life does not consist of possessions.”​

What if this means that in certain matters, God is not discernably involved?
Or, doesn’t want to be.

You asked about there being no practical way, sometimes. The cross is practical.

Also, in his agony in the garden he tells them to avoid “the test”. That’s inaction with respect to the decision.

 

[fakename]

Lk 12:14

13* Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” 14 He replied to him, “Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?” 15 Then he said to the crowd, “Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one’s life does not consist of possessions.”​

What if this means that in certain matters, God is not discernably involved?
Or, doesn’t want to be.

You asked about there being no practical way, sometimes. The cross is practical.

Also, in his agony in the garden he tells them to avoid “the test”. That’s inaction with respect to the decision.

God is definitely not involved in some things in some ways though he is involved in someway in everything. However that aside, my biggest problem with the “indecision” conclusion is that it is logically difficult to understand.

Like I mentioned before, it is possible to choose not to choose regarding some things however to not-choose is also to choose so you will always have to choose something. Choice is unavoidable and as such, there cannot be a moral rule that says “sometimes don’t decide on either alternative” since there is, by definition, always an alternative. The real rule must be something like “choose the better alternative (even the alternative of choosing neither of the obvious options)”. So therefore, I think that the principle “choose the greater good” is self-evident unless you can correct me on this.

But if life should make you choose something by definition good, at the expense of also choosing something by definition wrong, then is it better to do nothing at all? And this goes back to my original problem which is, isn’t it by definition neglectful to not choose something which is definitely [that is, by definition] good? Does the definitely good thing, by being connected with some definitely bad thing somehow become bad too? But does it not become externally bad or does it become definitely bad? That’s the huge problem in how we define the intrinsically bad and good involved in the situation. Perhaps it is in the definition of intrinsic that we are encountering all the later problems?

 

[ahs]

Principles:

(1) Don’t do evil to gain good
(2) Always do the good
(3) Avoid evil
(4) Not giving to the poor is theft
(5) One must do the greater good

This is not a good principle to live by in my opinion. One is not obliged to give to the poor beyond his means, and for some that may mean not giving at all in some case/circumstances/times. For example, if a man is married, his first obligation is to provide for his family. If giving of his time/talent/treasure to the poor would rob his family of an actual need, he would obviuosly want to provide first for his family.

In other words, you don’t need to add #6 at all in your treatise. You need to modify #4.

 

[Michael19682]

But if life should make you choose something by definition good, at the expense of also choosing something by definition wrong, then is it better to do nothing at all? And this goes back to my original problem which is, isn’t it by definition neglectful to not choose something which is definitely [that is, by definition] good? Does the definitely good thing, by being connected with some definitely bad thing somehow become bad too? But does it not become externally bad or does it become definitely bad? That’s the huge problem in how we define the intrinsically bad and good involved in the situation. Perhaps it is in the definition of intrinsic that we are encountering all the later problems?

You are definitely on to something philosophically, as far as I can tell. Perhaps a new direction for you is to consider that to make a decision involves awareness. Paul in Romans discusses the entire subject of “don’t” with regard to the commandments. But the commandments are something we have grafted onto our history through Christ. We know they are good directives if followed. Love allows us to follow them. The scenarios you proposed, with the idea of intrinisic goods and bads, showed that time can make any of them make a U-Turn. In fact, as we think Jesus told us, if we don’t use love, even the commandments can be U-Turned.

 

[fakename]

This is not a good principle to live by in my opinion. One is not obliged to give to the poor beyond his means, and for some that may mean not giving at all in some case/circumstances/times. For example, if a man is married, his first obligation is to provide for his family. If giving of his time/talent/treasure to the poor would rob his family of an actual need, he would obviuosly want to provide first for his family.

In other words, you don’t need to add #6 at all in your treatise. You need to modify #4.

This is interesting because now we can at least define some goods.

Now we should give to those who need it, however there are restrictions as you say. So does this mean that the, by definition, good idea of “helping those who can’t help themselves” is not always definitely good and so should be rejected or does it mean something else? To state the question again but differently: how can we not choose to do what is definitely good? How can what has goodness in its very definition be yet only good from the point of view of certain circumstances?

Here let me analyze also what it means to be definitely good. First, the definitely good is inherently good in that it is a thing which has goodness in its description. So for instance politeness, or affability, or beauty, helpfulness, or etc. Also the definitely good is always and everywhere good since its goodness is by definition and does not depend on contingent events.

Here we are faced with numerous contradictions. There are many extrinsically good things which are accidentally at least, inherently good. For instance, the act of escaping a physical danger is not inherently good (good taken as moral goodness and not whatever is good for the body -for in the latter case avoid danger is inherently good). But insofar as this physical danger is unjustly imposed then you are doing a good thing and are fulfilling the commandments to stop murder. But to stop murder is inherently morally good. So even the neutral can be connected with what is essentially good. So is the neutral also essentially good? The other contradiction is that the commandments are ranked in order of importance such that one must be put ahead of the other in certain times. This means that for external reasons, to prefer a lower good would be bad. And yet, how can the inherently good also be extrinsically bad?

This whole question, I believe, is similar to the question of being in that “how can there be more than one being?” is a problem for similar reasons and perhaps a similar conclusion as the problem now being discussed.

 

[fakename]

This is interesting because now we can at least define some goods.

Now we should give to those who need it, however there are restrictions as you say. So does this mean that the, by definition, good idea of “helping those who can’t help themselves” is not always definitely good and so should be rejected or does it mean something else? To state the question again but differently: how can we not choose to do what is definitely good? How can what has goodness in its very definition be yet only good from the point of view of certain circumstances?

Here let me analyze also what it means to be definitely good. First, the definitely good is inherently good in that it is a thing which has goodness in its description. So for instance politeness, or affability, or beauty, helpfulness, or etc. Also the definitely good is always and everywhere good since its goodness is by definition and does not depend on contingent events.

Here we are faced with numerous contradictions. There are many extrinsically good things which are accidentally at least, inherently good. For instance, the act of escaping a physical danger is not inherently good (good taken as moral goodness and not whatever is good for the body -for in the latter case avoid danger is inherently good). But insofar as this physical danger is unjustly imposed then you are doing a good thing and are fulfilling the commandments to stop murder. But to stop murder is inherently morally good. So even the neutral can be connected with what is essentially good. So is the neutral also essentially good? The other contradiction is that the commandments are ranked in order of importance such that one must be put ahead of the other in certain times. This means that for external reasons, to prefer a lower good would be bad. And yet, how can the inherently good also be extrinsically bad?

This whole question, I believe, is similar to the question of being in that “how can there be more than one being?” is a problem for similar reasons and perhaps a similar conclusion as the problem now being discussed.

One might in the end conclude, that if it is so impossible to be good in the proper sense of only choosing or doing what leads to only other inherent goods, then it would be morally absurd to be punished for choosing bads in some situtations.

However, that conclusion doesn’t fully satisfy me if there is some other more systematic conclusion.

To that end, let me inspect the matter a little further. I find that there is a certain principle of mine that is wrong, namely, “that it is wrong to neglect a good” because if it was true, then the whole idea of giving up a good for a greater good would also be wrong and yet I said it wasn’t. However, giving up a good still seems to be bad by definition. Why is it okay to give up some goods? What is the justification here?