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

[Bookcat]

Note well the line of Paul in Sacred Scripture that was quoted by Bl. Pope John Paul II above:

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

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Here you are separating the objective action from the rest of the act, and then claiming to judge the morality of the entire act. But that is not correct.

Let me put it another way:
The end (saving your own life) does not actually making the means (killing someone) morally good. As I understand it, it may simply mean that the person who committed the act is not morally culpable for the sin, because the evil was unintentional–they did not freely choose to do evil.

HTH.
And if I am mistaken or unclear, someone with more knowledge in this area will surely correct me.

Killing someone even in self defense is a choice. You could chose not to defend yourself.

 

[Bookcat]

The moral act is precipitated on the physical act. Just as homosexual attractions aren’t sinful, homosexual acts are.

if they are consented to - fostered yes they are sinful. Sin is not just in external acts

If you asked “Is killing someone sinful?” Catholics would say yes, but with caveats. The caveats are self defense or in “just war.” The same act " killing someone" has situations where it is justified. The morality of the act is situational based on intent and circumstances.

No we would say “murder”, “abortion” other forms of killing of the innocent are sinful. It is NOT that murder (the moral object) in its varied forms- is justified in some situations -it is NEVER justified.

The means “killing someone” does have moral caveats that are justified by the end, meaning it is ok in these circumstances because these intents are moral where other intents are not. The end of saving yourself or killing an immoral enemy makes the killing justified. The end justifies the means.

Killing someone is not the moral object. It is simply referring to the physical act. One must look to what the moral object is. Murder is a different moral object than say a just execution.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Killing someone is not the moral object. It is simply referring to the physical act. One must look to what the moral object is. Murder is a different moral object than say a just execution.

The physical act still must be present. There is no murder without someone killing someone. It is differentiated by the intent. The intent is why you did it. The intent is “the end” what you are hoping to accomplish by the act “the means”.

If I say “One man shot another, is it moral?” You would ask “what are the circumstances?” You can’t determine the morality without knowing what the end is. If the end is moral then the means are justified.

BTW

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexuals and Chastity

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The act is still the same. The intention is different. Removing the fallopian tube is sinful unless medically necessary as it amounts to sterilization. It is the intent that is different, the act is the same. The end (saving the woman) justifies the means (removing the fallopian tube).

Or killing someone. It is morally justifiable if it’s in self defense. It’s not otherwise. It is the intent that is different. The act is the same. The end justifies the means.

This may be primarily a definition problem here. As Bookcat has stated a couple times, what is physically done is not the full definition of the act.

Removing the tube for the purpose of making a person sterile is sterilization and is wrong.

Removing the tube because it it is in the process of killing you is not “sterilization” in the sense of above, it is an act which has the side effect of causing the person to become sterile.

The act “directly and purposefully make a person sterile” is different from the act “save a person’s life, in the process rendering them sterile.” It does not matter whether the actual physical process is the same.

It is important to distinguish between attempted ends (what you attempt to bring about), means (what you do to try to bring it about), and unintended side effects (other stuff that happens).

In the case where removing the tube is permitted, the means are “removing diseased organ” to cause the end of “life saved” with the unfortunate side effect of “person sterile”.

In the other case, the means is “remove a (presumably healthy) organ” to cause the end of “sterilization”. But sterilization is not permitted as an ends or a means, so this is wrong.

Another case may be using the means “cause a woman to become sterile” to achieve the ends “will not have another risky pregnancy.” This is also not permitted because again, sterilization is always bad and so cannot be used as an ends or means.

An action with an evil side effect may be permitted for proportional reasons (to avoid a worse evil), but an evil action can never be directly committed. And in this case, the evil is “the causing of sterilization” not “removed certain organ.”

Your definitions are not the standard ones. This will work better if you use the standard ones, I think.

 

[Bookcat]

The physical act still must be present. There is no murder without someone killing someone. It is differentiated by the intent. The intent is why you did it. The intent is “the end” what you are hoping to accomplish by the act “the means”.

If I say “One man shot another, is it moral?” You would ask “what are the circumstances?” You can’t determine the morality without knowing what the end is. If the end is moral then the means are justified.

Yes there is a physical act (or a mental act) present.

It is NOT though the intent that is primary. If I murder someone --no matter why – it is always and everywhere evil. Murder can never be made to be good.

I refer you to the Catholic Church (Catechism, Veritatis Spendor, orthodox works of Catholic Theology etc - your understanding is off base here)

(As to homosexual questions – yes as the Church teaches–it is not new there (one must understand though what that is -to experience a temptation and attraction is one thing -to choose --to endorse it with the will is another).)

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This may be primarily a definition problem here. As Bookcat has stated a couple times, what is physically done is not the full definition of the act.

Removing the tube for the purpose of making a person sterile is sterilization and is wrong.

Removing the tube because it it is in the process of killing you is not sterilization, it is an act which has the side effect of causing the person to become sterile.

The act “directly and purposefully make a person sterile” is different from the act “save a person’s life, in the process rendering them sterile.” It does not matter whether the actual physical process is the same.

Your definitions are not the standard ones. This will work better if you use the standard ones, I think.

You are trying to separate the morality from the physical act. It isn’t possible. You have a physical act whose morality is judged from the circumstances and intent.

 

[Bookcat]

you have a physical act whose morality is judged from the circumstances and intent.

Such is would not be the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

Please see the Catechism. Moral object is key and yes then the circumstance and intent have to also be good.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

You are trying to separate the morality from the physical act. It isn’t possible. You have a physical act whose morality is judged from the circumstances and intent.

I pulled a ninja edit on you it seems.

But no. The physical act is only part of things. It is not all of it. Murder is murder whether with a gun or a knife - it is the murder that is bad, the stabbing or shooting can be called bad because they were part of the murder, but the stabbing or shooting are not the whole of the murder.

It is not separation. It’s a lack of exclusionary focus on the physical part of an act.

 

[Bookcat]

YYou have a physical act whose morality is judged from the circumstances and intent.

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.

Full treatment:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I pulled a ninja edit on you it seems.

But no. The physical act is only part of things. It is not all of it. Murder is murder whether with a gun or a knife - it is the murder that is bad, the stabbing or shooting can be called bad because they were part of the murder, but the stabbing or shooting are not the whole of the murder.

It is not separation. It’s a lack of exclusionary focus on the physical part of an act.

In the catechism it states: emphasis mine

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69

Yet in the previous section: Legitimate defense. It states all the times that intentional killing is justified. Why is justified? Because the reason you are killing is moral, the defense or yourself or defense of others. The “intentional killing” aka the means is justified by the end.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

 

[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

got to run see ya

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

got to run see ya

I don’t think you understand that quote.

What makes one killing murder and another not murder?

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t think you understand that quote.

Yes I understand it. Theology is my background.

 

[Bookcat]

Nice summary from Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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]

Yes I understand it. Theology is my background.

Sorry edited it while you where responding - Let’s start here:

What makes one killing murder and another not murder?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I don’t know if you intended the quote from the catechism to be an answer to my question what makes a killing a murder. If so, it doesn’t directly answer it. With your background as a theologian, what constitutes a killing a murder or not a murder?

 

[wbh80]

Yet in the previous section: Legitimate defense. It states all the times that intentional killing is justified. Why is justified? Because the reason you are killing is moral, the defense or yourself or defense of others. The “intentional killing” aka the means is justified by the end.

2263 does not justify intentional killing at all. From your third quote:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

It specifically describes an act in which the killing of the aggressor is an unintentional consequence of self defense.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

2263 does not justify intentional killing at all. From your third quote:

It specifically describes an act in which the killing of the aggressor is an unintentional consequence of self defense.

It’s saying that and then negating it with examples of when there are exceptions. If you are a soldier your job maybe to kill the enemy. You know that before you go to combat. That is an intentional killing. Yet it is justified. Why is it justified?, because it serves a greater good.

 

[Bookcat]

Sorry edited it while you where responding - Let’s start here:

What makes one killing murder and another not murder?

I have given the Churches teaching and I do not have time now to go step by step though everything. The Church has given the needed understanding of these things --I refer you to the Catechism, the Compendium and Pope John Paul II"s document on Moral Theology (Splendor of Truth)

It is important too for all of us to avoid what Paul says to avoid --that is arguing over words. Cause sometimes it comes down to that in these sorts of discussions. It is a temptation that takes our time all too often here.

And speaking of Paul he the quote above from his letter is very to the point.

Quoted above by Bl. Pope John Paul II --St. Paul states such 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).

Anyhow I have to be about Family Life – I cannot get further into this right now.

Nice is a very summary from Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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

Such is the Teaching of the Church

That really sums it up and there is not need to keep going back and forth with us seeking to reinvent the moral wheel.