Can someone explain to me why the ends don't justify the means?

[Roscoe_Turner]

Principle of double effects does not separate the effects. In examines the intrinsic moral status of the action and the intend end. Only if these are moral can a greater good of the effects justify the action. If you choose an evil action (the moral object, not the effect), no matter how small , then the principle of double effect does not apply.

Yes. We’ve covered this ground. If removing the uterus by it’s self would be considered not a good (causes sterilization), removing it because it is diseased puts conditionality on the action. It achieves more good (saving a life) than the evil that is also an effect (sterilization)

The way around it is to say - that you are not removing it just to remove it but stopping the spread of disease so the sterilization is an unintended effect. It attempts to distance the intention from the means.

I am saying you can’t separate the two. You are still doing the same act of removing the uterus BUT because your intention is beneficial the evil is tolerated. It is a case of the end (stopping disease) justifying the means (removing the uterus).

Just as in the case of side effects in drugs. The down side is tolerated if the benefits outweigh them.

 

[Bookcat]

"The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas. In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behaviour. To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason, it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person. Consequently, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “there are certain specific kinds of behaviour that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil”.127 …

‘There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8).

The reason why a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed, is that the human act depends on its object, whether that object is capable or not of being ordered to God, to the One who “alone is good”, and thus brings about the perfection of the person."

~ Bl. Pope John Paul II

Encylical: VERITATIS SPLENDOR

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

For new readers to a long thread – to address the original question.

Quoted above by Bl. Pope John Paul II --St. Paul states “the ends justify the means” is an idea is* condemned*:

"There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8).

A very nice summary from the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

367. What are the sources of the morality of human acts?

1749-1754
1757-1758

The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the object chosen, either a true or apparent good; the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act; and the circumstances of the act, which include its consequences.

368. When is an act morally good?

1755-1756
1759-1760

An act is morally good when it assumes simultaneously the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances. A chosen object can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety, even if the intention is good. It is not licit to do evil so that good may result from it. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself. On the other hand, a good end does not make an act good if the object of that act is evil, since the end does not justify the means. Circumstances can increase or diminish the responsibility of the one who is acting but they cannot change the moral quality of the acts themselves. They never make good an act which is in itself evil.

369. Are there acts which are always illicit?

1756
1761

There are some acts which, in and of themselves, are always illicit by reason of their object (for example, blasphemy, homicide, adultery). Choosing such acts entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil which can never be justified by appealing to the good effects which could possibly result from them.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Welcome back, once again And thanks for reposting all that, once again.

It still doesn’t explain how the example of removing the uterus isn’t the end justifying the means.

Removing the uterus in itself isn’t morally neutral. Removing it because it is diseased puts conditionality on the act. The act is justified because of the condition. Removing it is the lesser of two evils. Sterilization vs Death.

 

[Bookcat]

Welcome back, once again And thanks for reposting all that, once again.

It still doesn’t explain how the example of removing the uterus isn’t the end justifying the means.

Removing the uterus in itself isn’t morally neutral. Removing it because it is diseased puts conditionality on the act. The act is justified because of the condition. Removing it is the lesser of two evils. Sterilization vs Death.

I was providing posts for new readers who may not wish to read 200+ pages.

As to the removal of the Uterus --it is NOT choosing any evil. Not a lesser of two evils. It is the Good that is chosen.

The means here is the removal of the diseased member of the body for the end of saving the life of the Mother who will die if it is not removed now.

The unintended and horrible side effect of the tragic loss of a the child who resides in that womb is just that - an unintended and horrible and tragic side effect. Not the means.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I was providing posts for new readers who may not wish to read 200+ pages.

As to the removal of the Uterus --it is NOT choosing any evil. Not a lesser of two evils. It is the Good that is chosen.

The means here is the removal of the diseased member of the body for the end of saving the life of the Mother who will die if it is not removed now.

The unintended and horrible side effect of the tragic loss of a the child who resides in that womb is just that - an unintended and horrible and tragic side effect. Not the means.

You are removing the uterus. There is a special condition where it permissible. The special condition is that the uterus is diseased. It is an example of choosing a smaller “evil” to achieve a greater good.

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

Therapeutic removal of the organ is an exception to the rule because it achieves a greater good. Mutilation is not moral EXCEPT when done therapeutically. A smaller evil is used to achieve a greater good.

 

[Bookcat]

You are removing the uterus. There is a special condition where it permissible. The special condition is that the uterus is diseased. It is an example of choosing a smaller “evil” to achieve a greater good.

.

Yes that is a good thing – one is removing the body part that will kill the patient if it is not removed now. The means is not evil.

The removal of a diseased body part is simply not an evil.

It is a diseased body part.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Yes that is a good thing – one is removing the body part that will kill the patient if it is not removed now. The means is not evil.

The removal of a diseased body part is simply not an evil.

It is a diseased body part.

It’s an exception. It says so right in the Catechism.

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

It’s not permissible except under a certain condition. It doesn’t change the act, only makes it permissible. An “evil” is permitted to achieve a “good.” The end justifies the means. It’s there in print.

 

[Bookcat]

Therapeutic removal of the organ is an exception to the rule because it achieves a greater good. Mutilation is not moral EXCEPT when done therapeutically. A smaller evil is used to achieve a greater good.

Again these posts come back to the fundamental fissure in the understanding of Moral Theology here.

Mutilation is not being done. Mutilation is a different moral object. It is NOT that mutilation is ok if the part of the body attacks the whole - it is that what we are talking about is NOT MUTILATION.

Different moral object. Different moral object.

Please - the difficulty here is that somewhere along the way there have been picked up some misinformation regarding the principles of Catholic Moral Theology on these matters. (some false premises which lead each time by their presence -to false conclusions)

Misunderstandings in thinking and where one keeps coming back to these same cracks. It can be helpful to set aside these things and start from the ground with good sources (and even a course from Steubenville or the likes can help one did into the depths).

 

[Bookcat]

It’s an exception. It says so right in the Catechism.

If I say to my son - having sex is a grave sin – and then follow it quickly with except of course if one is having marital relations of course…

That does not mean that marital relations is “an exception”. It is just explaining that such is not what is meant when I said said the first part. In the full reality fornication and adultery and marital relations are different moral objects.

Mutilation and the surgical removal of a diseased part are different moral objects.

Needed surgical removal of a disease part for the sake of the whole is NOT mutilation.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Again these posts come back to the fundamental fissure in the understanding of Moral Theology here.

Mutilation is not being done. Mutilation is a different moral object. It is NOT that mutilation is ok if the part of the body attacks the whole - it is that what we are talking about is NOT MUTILATION.

Different moral object. Different moral object.

Please reread this sentence again

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

It is a mutilation and a sterilization to remove an uterus. You can’t do it although It is permissible to do so if it is for therapeutic reasons.

That is what this clause says

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons

It is a clear example of the ends justifying the means. It is a clear example of choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[Bookcat]

Please reread this sentence again

It is a mutilation and a sterilization to remove an uterus. You can’t do it although It is permissible to do so if it is for therapeutic reasons.

That is what this clause says

It is a clear example of the ends justifying the means. It is a clear example of choosing the lesser of two evils.

Explained already.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Explained already.

Yes, but you don’t seem to agree

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

If I say to my son - having sex is a grave sin – and then follow it quickly with except of course if one is having marital relations of course…

That does not mean that marital relations is “an exception”.

Yes, that’s exactly what that means.

 

[Bookcat]

Please reread this sentence again

It is a mutilation and a sterilization to remove an uterus. You can’t do it although It is permissible to do so if it is for therapeutic reasons.

That is what this clause says

It is a clear example of the ends justifying the means. It is a clear example of choosing the lesser of two evils.

Good means. Good surgery to save the person. The aim is not to render the person steril but to remove the diseased part and save the life of the person. The unintended side effect is the sterility of the person.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Good means. Good surgery to save the person. The aim is not to render the person steril but to remove the diseased part and save the life of the person. The unintended side effect is the sterility of the person.

You are still removing the uterus. That is the act (the means). The “why” is different, not the act.

 

[Bookcat]

One of the requirements at the very heart of the principle of double effect is that evil consequence cannot be the means by which the good effect is to be obtained.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Greetings CAF!

I understand that the ends do not justify the means, like you can’t kill and torture someone to save the world. But one thing that has never been explained to me concerning this expression is why? Why don’t the ends justify the means?

I can’t really make sense of it. I agree with it, but it’s like I’m agreeing with something that I don’t even have any knowledge of.

Could anyone clear up my dilemma?

Thanks,
Facite

Hi:

The catechism of the Catholic Church has some explanation I was able to find for you. See if this helps. There is more guidance, but it starts getting pretty deep.

THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

IN BRIEF

1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three “sources” of the morality of human acts.

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

One of the requirements at the very heart of the principle of double effect is that evil consequence cannot be the means by which the good effect is to be obtained.

You are attempting to remove the means from the act. It’s not possible. You can’t remove the diseased organ without removing the organ. Removal of the organ is the act. Removal of the disease is the “why”.

 

[Bookcat]

You are attempting to remove the means from the act. It’s not possible. You can’t remove the diseased organ without removing the organ. Removal of the organ is the act. Removal of the disease is the “why”.

No I am not.

The removal of the diseased organ is NOT a morally evil means.

And the principle of totality explains that the removal of a part of a person for saving of the persons life is not a moral evil.

Now if one murdered one of their children to take their organs to transplant them into a person to save the person --that would be a morally evil means and very wrong to do.