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

[Bookcat]

I fully understand what you are saying. And certainly the with regards to self-defense, the principal of double-effect shows that it is not a case of the ends-justifying the means.

However, it seems to me that we must admit that the Church’s formulations of this is not altogether consistent.

Taken all together, it is very fair to say that this is close to “the ends must justify the means”. We see in 2307 that evil accompanies all war. And the last point of 2309 specifically says that the evils produced by the use of arms (again, it assumes even the justified side will produce evils), must not be graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Indeed, in the old days (before the new catechism came out), I remember a theology teacher actually stating the last criteria of a just war was “the ends must justify the means”. Now, that was just one man, certainly not the Church. But since the Church teaches that all sides in war will produce evils, and those evils must not be greater than the evil being averted; it does not seem his formulation was that far off.

I can not respond to what the professor back then asserted -either there was error or something was lost in translation. Again this can be a difficult topic and things can be misunderstood.

This is not something new with the Catechism (which I find consistent). Again in a just war the ends do not justify the means. Period. That some evils can happen as unintended side effects in a just war is certainly a reality -but such is not the means to the end. Once one chooses an evil as the means -that act in war is evil. It is not just.

 

[Facite]

This forum really got “deep” after my last point…

 

[tafan]

I can not respond to what the professor back then asserted -either there was error or something was lost in translation. Again this can be a difficult topic and things can be misunderstood.

This is not something new with the Catechism (which I find consistent). Again in a just war the ends do not justify the means. Period. That some evils can happen as unintended side effects in a just war is certainly a reality -but such is not the means to the end. Once one chooses an evil as the means -that act in war is evil. It is not just.

My point is that the Catechism almost explicitly states that war is an evil means. “the use of arms must not **produce evils and disorders graver **than the evil to be eliminated” This wording seems quite clear that the use of arms is going to produce evils and disorders. Likewise: “Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war”.

Its a terminology thing. I understand the principal of double-effect. It is actually very clear. It is the saying that “the ends cannot justify the means” which leads to the ambiguity.

All I am saying is that it is quite understandable when people do not quite get this. That’s all, I am going to bow out. As I don’t want to argue on the wrong side of the Church’s teachings, and I suppose I am coming dangerously close to doing so.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It’s the lesser of two evils.

Some innocents may be killed (collateral damage) but if the person you were trying to kill would have caused more harm then it’s justified.

It doesn’t make the people any less dead because you didn’t intend to kill them. It’s just an acceptable level of deaths of the innocents. It’s clear you are choosing the lesser of two evils.

You can repeat " the ends doesn’t justify the means" like a mantra but it’s there in the catechism. Evils are going to be produced by the use of arms.

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

 

[Bookcat]

My point is that the Catechism almost explicitly states that war is an evil means. “the use of arms must not **produce evils and disorders graver **than the evil to be eliminated” This wording seems quite clear that the use of arms is going to produce evils and disorders. Likewise: “Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war”. .

Actually no.

The Church is not stating that just war is an evil means.

Rather that there can be evils and disorders --that are unintended side effects. Not means. (Similar to the fact that if a woman is dying of uterine cancer there is going to be the unintended side effect of the death of their unborn child if the uterus needs to be removed at that time.)

The ends cannot justify the means is a key part of the principle of double effect. * If the means to the end is evil – then the act is evil and cannot be done. That is part and partial of principle of double effect.*

Any evil which happens as an unintended side effect cannot be the *means *by which the good is obtained. You cannot say go kill the innocent the innocent children of the murdering dictator one is at war against-- one by one-- in order to stop him…

All I am saying is that it is quite understandable when people do not quite get this.

Yes it can be difficult.

(such suffices I think – for the other posts too above)

 

[Julian_Bashir]

What about sacrificing your life for another like a soldier in combat. You are choosing to end your life where in any other context is sinful/evil but because one does it for another it is considered a good.

Sacrificing your life for another man (see Jesus, Son of God) is not evil.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

But why can’t a good end negate an evil means? Why can’t the “evil” means become good because of a good end? Who says that the evil means CAN’T become a good means through justification by a good ends?

EDIT: Just trying to be the Devil’s Advocate here for a bit

in the end, the answer is always God said so. We know certain things to immutable truths. To play devil’s advocate only makes sense when arguing human precepts. Since the nothing of good from evil not being possible comes from God, to try anf find loopholes make little sense, for many reasons, the formost of which is, there are none.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Sacrificing your life for another man (see Jesus, Son of God) is not evil.

It is the moral exception when taking your own life. It is immoral to take your own life in any other situation. If you do it for others it is moral.

Each one of these examples we have discussed follow along the same framework. This act is immoral under most conditions but not under other conditions.

The morality is based on the intended outcome and occasionally prerequisites that set the stage.

You can have the same act preformed with different intentions and the morality is different.

If two bombers bomb the same building, one trying to kill a general and the the other going for casualties. They both perform the same act, one with malice one without. The one performed with malice is immoral and the other is not. The same people die, the same destruction occurs. One is culpable the other is not. It makes morality a thought crime.

 

[Bookcat]

The difficulty here is that the misunderstanding that such are “exceptions” they are not.

It is not “an exception” --one is talking rather about --two different realities --two different moral objects.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2320 The murder of a human being is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator.

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.”

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

It is very important to note that the Catholic Moral Principles are NOT about EXCEPTIONS.

The ends do not justify the means. There is absolutely no “exceptions” that make it ok to do an evil act. It is not about exceptions.

The acts in question (be it laying down ones life for another or self defense etc) are about “different moral objects”.

NOT exceptions to a negative commandment.

 

[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]

Stating they aren’t exceptions when the are doesn’t make it so anymore than calling red black makes it black.

 

[J_Peterson]

Evil is the absence of good? Can an absense of good bring about good? Can you light a room with darkness?

Sorry, I’m not sure how to spell absence so I tried it two ways.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I can’t just say to some non-Catholic asking about why the ends don’t justify the means, “Evil means do not justify good ends because it is evil to use evil means.”

That, to me, would not be a satisfying answer.

This may have already been thoroughly covered, but the reason why you cannot pursue a good end via an evil means has to do with the nature of both good and evil. They’re not the same sort of thing. Good is not one end of the shovel and evil the other and it’s just better to use the good end if you want to dig proper holes in order to get your work done faster. No.

Simone Weil writes (in Gravity and Grace):

Good as the opposite of evil is, in a sense, equivalent to it, as is the way with all opposites.

…]
That which is the direct opposite of an evil never belongs to the order of higher good. It is often scarcely any higher than evil! Examples: theft and the bourgeois respect for property; adultery and the “respectable woman”; the savings bank and waste; lying and “sincerity”.

Good is essentially other than evil. Evil is multifarious and fragmentary, good is one; evil is apparent, good is mysterious; evil consists in action, good in non-action, in activity which does not act, etc.— Good considered on the level of evil and measured against it as one opposite against another is good of the penal code order. …]
Good which is defined in the way that one defines evil should be rejected. Evil does reject it. But the way it rejects it is evil.
…]
Most people have a sense of duty about doing certain things that are bad and others that are good. The same man feels it to be a duty to sell for the highest price he can and not to steal, etc. Good for such people is on the level of evil, it is a good without light.

Good has a positive existence. Being is itself a good. Evil has a negative “existence”–it leads good things into unreality, into a destruction that looks like unbeing. They aren’t the ends of a spectrum. They are completely different orders of things. Again, Weil:

The unreality which takes the goodness from good, this is what constitutes evil. Evil is always the destruction of tangible things in which there is the real presence of good.
…]
Good and evil. Reality. That which gives more reality to beings and things is good, that which takes it from them is evil.

Evil occludes or removes the good from something. To do an evil act is to deface the good (or to attempt to, at any rate). You cannot deface the good and then turn around and say, “Look at the good I did.” You can’t rob something of it’s goodness and then say, “Look at the good I created.” It’s simply impossible.

It’s not so much that God says, “You may not do evil that good may result,” with the suggestion that, yeah, it’s possible to do evil that good may result, you just shouldn’t do it. No. It’s more the case that doing evil in order to produce a good is a moral absurdity and is simply impossible. It’s like saying, “I made this tuna sandwich so that wormhole nursing home.” It doesn’t make any sense on any level.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[underacloud]

underacloud;11140709:

In self defense, the “means” is not killing the other person. The “means” is using the neccessary force to defend oneself from an unjust attack. If that force results in the other’s death, so be it, but that is not the intent. It is merely an acceptable secondary effect of the action of defending oneself.

The “means” in this case might be for example shooting a gun. This itself is morally neutral. Someone doesn’t sin by shooting a gun in a shooting range, or when (legally) hunting. And someone doesn’t sin by using a gun to defend themselves, if it is propotionally justifiable. But they do sin in using a gun to commit muder (a different moral object/end).

The same logic scales up under just war scenarios. Obviously in war, the neccessary force is by nature lethal force. The intent is not to kill your enemy, but to use the neccessary force to prevent them from killing you or others they are unjustly attacking; their death is acceptable as an outcome of this.

These both fall under the principle of secondary effect, as Bookcat has referenced.

Self defense doesn’t always require deadly force, it usually doesn’t. With a few notable exceptions most states say you can not use more force than you are threatened with. For example killing someone because they punched you in the nose isn’t an acceptable use of force. The use of a firearm is considered deadly force. Meaning there is an acknowledgement of the possibility and probability of a death occurring with the use of the firearm. To say your intent isn’t to kill a person when you shoot them is either naive or willfully obscuring the proper use of firearms.

If you have pulled a firearm in a self defense scenario your life is in danger, the choice you have made is my life or theirs. I agree the moral choice is your own life. The end is saving your life the means is killing the other person.

No, the means is stopping the aggressor. Their death may be an unfortunate unintended effect. As you say, there is an “acknowledgement of the possibility and probability of a death” (your own words here), which is very different from saying you intended to kill them. Such reasoning falls under double effect.

Look at it this way. If an intruder enters your house, you shoot at him/her as they approach you with likely malice. Having shot them, you look down and see they are still alive. Now, do you shoot them again to finish them off? If the answer is yes, you clearly intended their death. If the answer is no, then you didn’t intend their death and merely used necessary force to protect yourself.

 

[wbh80]

It is the moral exception when taking your own life. It is immoral to take your own life in any other situation. If you do it for others it is moral.

Each one of these examples we have discussed follow along the same framework. This act is immoral under most conditions but not under other conditions.

The morality is based on the intended outcome and occasionally prerequisites that set the stage.

You can have the same act preformed with different intentions and the morality is different.

If two bombers bomb the same building, one trying to kill a general and the the other going for casualties. They both perform the same act, one with malice one without. The one performed with malice is immoral and the other is not. The same people die, the same destruction occurs. One is culpable the other is not. It makes morality a thought crime.

Much like the difference between murder and killing in self defense, there is a difference between taking an action with the intent to end your life versus taking an action to save others that ends up killing you. What if you had knowledge of another action you could have taken that would have saved others without ending your life? Would you still argue that choosing to kill yourself to save others with full knowledge that you could have spared your own life, as well, is okay?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Much like the difference between murder and killing in self defense, there is a difference between taking an action with the intent to end your life versus taking an action to save others that ends up killing you. What if you had knowledge of another action you could have taken that would have saved others without ending your life? Would you still argue that choosing to kill yourself to save others with full knowledge that you could have spared your own life, as well, is okay?

That is interesting because, isn’t that the story of Jesus? A being of ultimate power who could only save us by laying down his human life? There must have been other options for a omnipotent being. Even in His Human form He worked outside our human ability (miracles), so He wasn’t bound by His human nature.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No, the means is stopping the aggressor. Their death may be an unfortunate unintended effect. As you say, there is an “acknowledgement of the possibility and probability of a death” (your own words here), which is very different from saying you intended to kill them. Such reasoning falls under double effect.

Look at it this way. If an intruder enters your house, you shoot at him/her as they approach you with likely malice. Having shot them, you look down and see they are still alive. Now, do you shoot them again to finish them off? If the answer is yes, you clearly intended their death. If the answer is no, then you didn’t intend their death and merely used necessary force to protect yourself.

Your intention doesn’t make them any less dead though does it. Just cause you didn’t mean it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. If you’ve pulled the trigger while aiming at someone, you meant it. The gun didn’t accidentally go off. I can see the value of differentiating it legally but morally they are dead regardless of your intention.

 

[Bookcat]

Stating they aren’t exceptions when the are doesn’t make it so anymore than calling red black makes it black.

Saying something is an exception when it is not – does not make such become an exception. Even in an exceptional way.

---

To readers of this thread – see above what the Church Teaches and explains regarding these questions. And one may read more in the Catechism and various Orthodox works of Moral Theology. It is very important to go to the prime sources here – this can be a difficult subject to begin with and care must be taken to understand this well.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Saying something is an exception when it is not – does not make such become an exception. Even in an exceptional way.

---

To readers of this thread – see above what the Church Teaches and explains regarding these questions. And one may read more in the Catechism and various Orthodox works of Moral Theology. It is very important to go to the prime sources here – this can be a difficult subject to begin with and care must be taken to understand this well.

If you have an act that is forbidden except under certain circumstances that is an exception. It’s special pleading to say it is not.

 

[Bookcat]

If you have an act that is forbidden except under certain circumstances that is an exception. It’s special pleading to say it is not.

It is not the case here. One does NOT have a moral act that is forbidden here except under certain circumstances. What is not being seen here is that this is the very flaw in the understanding of the Churches Teaching on this. The assumption or conclusion is being made that one is dealing with the same moral object (physical act does not = moral object). That it is a circumstance that makes it ok to do an evil. It is never ok to do an evil.

The act that is forbidden --the act that is gravely wrong always and everywhere --is “murder”.

Legit. Self Defense is a different moral object.

It is NOT that murder becomes ok by exception under certain circumstances.

It is never ever ever ever permitted.

Legit self defense* is not murder*. It is not the intentional killing of an innocent person.

As the Catechism explains:

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.”

A duck is not a goose. And is not an exception to a goose. It is a duck.