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

[Roscoe_Turner]

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.

I’m not reinventing the moral wheel but rather pointing out what you keep quoting actually says not what you think it says.

Your above quote lists homicide as an illicit act yet the catechism that I posted lists some caveats to that, namely self defense and defense of others.

(Homicide is simply one human killing another).

That leads us to ask what differentiates the two types of homicide, justified and unjustified.

The catechism gives 3 cases where killing another human being (homicide) is justified.

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:

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.

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.

So what is the difference? You seem unable to unwilling to provide an answer and reject my answer not because you can offer why that it wrong logically but only dogmatically.

The 3 above examples of homicide are justified because they serve a greater good. That is another way of saying the end justifies the means.

 

[Bookcat]

I’m not reinventing the moral wheel but rather pointing out what you keep quoting actually says not what you think it says.

Your above quote lists homicide as an illicit act yet the catechism that I posted lists some caveats to that, namely self defense and defense of others.

(Homicide is simply one human killing another).

That leads us to ask what differentiates the two types of homicide, justified and unjustified.

The catechism gives 3 cases where killing another human being (homicide) is justified.

So what is the difference? You seem unable to unwilling to provide an answer and reject my answer not because you can offer why that it wrong logically but only dogmatically.

The 3 above examples of homicide are justified because they serve a greater good. That is another way of saying the end justifies the means.

This is the Catholic Moral Theology forum - I provided the Teaching of the Catholic Church in this issue of Catholic Moral Teaching. And I had to be off doing other things…

It is all summarized above.

Murder is a different mortal object than self-defense. As is just capital punishment (though such should still be rare if at all)

One may never murder. Period.

It is NOT the intention that makes it moral to even use at times lethal force if needed in self-defense. It is a different moral object. It is simply NOT murder.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This is the Catholic Moral Theology forum - I provided the Teaching of the Catholic Church in this issue of Catholic Moral Teaching. And I had to be off doing other things…

It is all summarized above.

Murder is a different mortal object than self-defense. As is just capital punishment (though such should still be rare if at all)

One may never murder. Period.

It is NOT the intention that makes it moral to even use at times lethal force if needed in self-defense. It is a different moral object. It is simply NOT murder.

Again I’ll ask what constitutes one killing a murder and another not a murder?

 

[Bookcat]

Again I’ll ask what constitutes one killing a murder and another not a murder?

Just look at what self defense is. And what murder is. They are two very different moral objects.

Like the marital act and fornication.

Murder (the unjust and intentional taking of an innocent life could be one way to put it) is very different than necessary self-defense where for the sake of keeping the person from taking my life I must use force with the person who is attacking me-- seeking to kill me --which has to be unfortunately “so much” (due to the need to stop him) that he looses his life in the process. His death is not intended.

His being killed in the process is simply not murder. It is a different moral object.

Where as his attempt to murder me was intended and quite unjust.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Just look at what self defense is. And what murder is. They are two very different moral objects.

Like the marital act and fornication.

Murder (the unjust and intentional taking of an innocent life could be one way to put it) is very different than necessary self-defense where for the sake of keeping the person from taking my life I must use force with the person who is attacking me-- seeking to kill me --which has to be unfortunately “so much” (due to the need to stop him) that he looses his life in the process. His death is not intended.

His being killed in the process is simply not murder. It is a different moral object.

Where as his attempt to murder me was intended and quite unjust.

Again, It is the reason for the killing that differentiates the two. That is “the end” Why the other person is killed.

Saving your own life is end, killing is the means. A good comes from killing. VS Killing for a selfish reason (greed, jealousy, revenge, etc) is the end, Killing is the means. No good came from it. The outcome matters. Why you do it matters. The “end” matters.

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.

 

[underacloud]

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.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

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.

There can be many scenarios where one human kills another, but there are only a few where it is justified. The catechism lays out those exceptions. If there are exceptions the difference must be discerned. The difference is “the end” why the killing occurred. If the reason is a justifiable, the killing is justified. The “end” determines the validity of the means.

 

[Bookcat]

Again, It is the reason for the killing that differentiates the two. That is “the end” Why the other person is killed.

Saving your own life is end, killing is the means. A good comes from killing. VS Killing for a selfish reason (greed, jealousy, revenge, etc) is the end, Killing is the means. No good came from it. The outcome matters. Why you do it matters. The “end” matters.

Stopping the aggressor with force is the means. Any death that may result if one must use that degree of force (and one should use one what is needed) is unintended.

And again the moral object is different.

Again like in fornication and the martial act. Two very different moral objects both are intercourse.

A person can say “we are having relations cause we love each other and want to express such. That is our intention our end. Therefore it is good for us to do so”.

But in reality the act is an act of fornication -a gravely sinful act which can never be justified. It is always and everywhere evil. It is a lie.

No “intention” can make it good. None.

The very moral object is fornication and will remain fornication.

Same with murder. Someone can say “I am murdering this person for this reason or that”

No intention can justify murder. None.

It is murder.

The object is different than the loss of life that is unintended in the needed self defense. It is not the intention here that is pivotal but the moral object.

No good intention can make an intrinsically evil act into a good. None.

Yes this quote is very true:

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.

But one must read the rest.

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.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Stopping the aggressor with force is the means. Any death that may result if one must use (and one should use one what is needed) is unintended.

And again the moral object is different.

Again like in fornication and the martial act. Two very different moral objects both are intercourse.

A person can say “we are having relations cause we love each other and want to express such. That is our intention our end. Therefore it is good for us to do so”.

But in reality the act is an act of fornication -a gravely sinful act which can never be justified. It is always and everywhere evil. It is a lie.

No “intention” can make it good. None.

The very moral object is fornication and will remain fornication.

Same with murder. Someone can say “I am murdering this person for this reason or that”

No intention can justify murder. None.

It is murder.

The object is different than the loss of life that is unintended in the needed self defense. It is not the intention here that is pivotal but the moral object.

No good intention can make an intrinsically evil act into a good. None.

Yes this quote is very true:

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.

But one must read the rest.

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.

I think we are talking past each other. What makes the same physical act, either fornication or a marital bond is the context not the act. What differentiates the two is the reason for the act. What we choose to accomplish. That is “the end” There can not be fornication without sex, that is “the means.” There can’t be sex as a marital bond without the sex act. There can be other ways to bond but we are discussing the difference between two acts of sex. One immoral and the other not.

The moral one has preparation (marriage) and intent for the good. ( Marital Boding and Procreation). The immoral act doesn’t have the necessary preparation and done for hedonistic pleasure. They are the same physical act. What is different is “the ends” they hope to achieve by “the means” of a sexual act.

 

[kmcarl56]

The following is taken from ask.com:

"Niccolo Machiavelli [a philosopher] wrote that “the ends justify the means”. Typically, this quote is misinterpreted as any action, no matter how unethical or immoral, can be justified for the purpose of any reasonable or needed outcome. However, Machiavelli suggested and supported this pragmatic philosophy only for the purpose of stabilizing and improving governments. Machiavelli specifically stated that this philosophy could not be ethically used by individuals for personal greed, profit, or self improvement. Furthermore, Machiavelli believed that any possibly “cruel actions” by governments should be “swift, effective, and short-lived” to decrease the harmful impact on their citizens and to minimize the probability of rebellion.

I think in this modern age the Machiavellian philosophy of “the ends justify the means” needs to be expanded upon.

First, companies are using this philosophy despite any consequences to individuals or the world. For example, businesses believe that profits are more important than their employees or their customers. Also, companies continue to knowingly harm the environment without care for wildlife, people, or future generations. This is obviously wrong, and companies should be made accountable for their actions just like people are, since greed is not a valid excuse for the ends justifying the means.

Second, governments are suppose to use this Machiavellian philosophy only to help their citizens, yet political leaders continue to use this reasoning for war with other countries or simply just harming other countries politically, economically, and socially. These leaders should not help the citizens of their countries at the cost of harming citizens of other countries.

Because of human nature, it has been repeatedly proven that individuals, companies, and governments cannot morally justify their actions based on greed. And since we now live in an increasingly interdependent world, humanity can only afford the Machiavellian philosophy of “the ends justify the means” to help the entire human race or planet. Yet who can the world trust to be idealistic and moral enough to help all of humanity and the environment, and at the same time, be practical enough to make extremely difficult decisions that can and will harm a great deal of people?

by Phil B"

Much has been discussed here about murder vs self-defense. Please allow me give you another scenerio. I am a single woman and a man breaks into my house and is about to rape me. He is a wanted serial rapist and murderer. I take out my gun and shoot him before he rapes me. Yes, I have committed murder in self-defense, but any murder is sinful. The act of killing this man has not only saved myself, but has also saved countless other women from being raped and murdered. Justice is served in the eyes of society and the law. Thus, the means does justify the end.

However, as a Christian, I must forgive this man, and ask for God’s forgiveness for the act I have committed.

Society has taken this phrase to its’ utmost meaning. Yet, sin is sin. Morality is moral. God’s laws apply to everyone. However, the circumstances may differ. As Machiavelli tries to explain, this philosophy should only be used with great discretion…like increasing taxes for a short time to pay off massive debt.

 

[Bookcat]

I think we are talking past each other.

Then let us then simply turn to the Teaching of the Church and use her language. With simplicity.

There is no need to keep going around and around.

No need to try to reinvent the wheel here.

(readers may see the Teaching of the Church above from the Compendium et al)

 

[LSK]

Two wrongs do not make a right.

To deliberately chose to do something evil is certainly possible, and it may even look as though the outcome is glorious and good. However, the action actually demonstrates a lack of trust in God and His Providence. It also relieves us of the obligation to examine our motives and actions.

A follower of Islam who rapes a little boy because it relieves him of sexual tension and thereby keeps him from sinning by engaging in sexual relationship with a woman not his wife is a good example of why the ends do not justify the means.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Then let us then simply turn to the Teaching of the Church and use her language. With simplicity.

There is no need to keep going around and around.

No need to try to reinvent the wheel here.

(readers may see the Teaching of the Church above from the Compendium et al)

Yes, you keep quoting that one part yet fail to address any other part of the catechism. I can read that they use the wording the end doesn’t justify the means.

YET…

The catechism clearly states the killing of another person is morally wrong, EXCEPT under certain conditions. They give the justifications for those exceptions. They are justifying the means by the ends that they achieve. They are using the ends to justify the means.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, you keep quoting that one part yet fail to address any other part of the catechism. I can read that they use the wording the end doesn’t justify the means.

YET…

The catechism clearly states the killing of another person is morally wrong, EXCEPT under certain conditions. They give the justifications for those exceptions. They are justifying the means by the ends that they achieve. They are using the ends to justify the means.

I have answered that. They are two different moral object.

It is not that murder is wrong unless under certain conditions.

It is that the moral object murder is gravely wrong* always and everywhere* and nothing …nothing not “certain conditions” can ever make it good --ever ever ever ever.

The death that may occur in self-defense or other in just capital punishment etc is NOT murder. They are very different moral objects. * It is not that there is an exception* – they are different animals.

Just like fornication and adultery are different objects than the marital act.

Or my going to my friends house and taking and eating some of his cookies while presuming his consent – is a very different moral object than theft. The taking and eating of the cookies is simply not theft. It is not the species of theft.

They are different moral objects.

It is not that the intention or the end result “justifies” an evil act. It is that it is a different moral object (and one of course with a good intention and circumstance too of course.)

I cannot ever commit murder for any reason. Period. Nothing ever ever ever makes it a good act. It is always evil in itself.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, you keep quoting that one part yet fail to address any other part of the catechism. I can read that they use the wording the end doesn’t justify the means.

YET…

The catechism clearly states the killing of another person is morally wrong, EXCEPT under certain conditions. They give the justifications for those exceptions. They are justifying the means by the ends that they achieve. They are using the ends to justify the means.

This can as one sees it can take some time to understand all the aspects when one wants to pursue a deeper understanding of the various aspects involved.

PS in addition to the post above

As I note 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

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I have answered that. They are two different moral object.

It is not that murder is wrong unless under certain conditions.

It is that the moral object murder is gravely wrong* always and everywhere* and nothing …nothing not “certain conditions” can ever make it good --ever ever ever ever.

The death that may occur in self-defense or other in just capital punishment etc is NOT murder. They are very different moral objects. * It is not that there is an exception* – they are different animals.

Just like fornication and adultery are different objects than the marital act.

Or my going to my friends house and taking and eating some of his cookies while presuming his consent – is a very different moral object than theft. The taking and eating of the cookies is simply not theft. It is not the species of theft.

They are different moral objects.

It is not that the intention or the end result “justifies” an evil act. It is that it is a different moral object (and one of course with a good intention and circumstance too of course.)

I cannot ever commit murder for any reason. Period. Nothing ever ever ever makes it a good act. It is always evil in itself.

A killing is considered murder because of intent. The end it hopes to achieve.

If someone is killed, you can’t judge if it is murder unless you know the end that it aimed to achieve. It’s double speak.

Person one: Murder is immoral to use because it’s immoral.
Person two: How do you know it was murder?
P1: Because it was done selfishly
P2: What if it was self defense?
P1: Then it wasn’t murder.
P2: How do you know it was selfish?
P1: We know because of “why” they Killed
P2: So if you aren’t selfish in the killing it’s impossible to commit murder, so it’s impossible to use murder for altruistic goals.

You can’t use it for good by definition.

The means of killing is justified by the end. Selfish or not selfish. If it’s selfish you can’t have a good “end”. The means doesn’t justify the end. The end is what justifies the means.

It’s like saying you can’t use swimming to drown. Are you swimming? Yes. Then you aren’t drowning. Are you drowning? Yes, then you aren’t swimming.

You can’t use swimming to drown. You can’t use drowning to swim. It’s impossible to be doing both.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, you keep quoting that one part yet fail to address any other part of the catechism. I can read that they use the wording the end doesn’t justify the means.

YET…

The catechism clearly states the killing of another person is morally wrong, EXCEPT under certain conditions. They give the justifications for those exceptions. They are justifying the means by the ends that they achieve. They are using the ends to justify the means.

This can as one sees it can take some time to understand all the aspects when one wants to pursue a deeper understanding of the various aspects involved…

PS in addition to the post above

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

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This can as one sees it can take some time to understand all the aspects when one wants to pursue a deeper understanding of the various aspects involved…

PS in addition to the post above

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

No, it’s just an impossibility of logic and syntax to use murder for good because murder is defined as killing immoral reasons. If your motivation and end are justified, i.e. self defense then you haven’t committed murder. It’s not a prohibition, it’s an impossibility.

 

[Bookcat]

I would refer all to the Teachings of the Catholic Church (Catechism, Compendium etc) and some good orthodox Catholic works moral theology. This can be a difficult subject and misunderstandings can easily enter the mix. * It can take time to get our thinking clear on this* --but it important for the we cannot do evil as a means to obtain the good. The end does not justify the means.

Then the light of truth will illumine our path more brightly.

 

[tafan]

I would refer all to the Teachings of the Catholic Church (Catechism, Compendium etc) and some good orthodox Catholic works moral theology. This can be a difficult subject and misunderstandings can easily enter the mix. * It can take time to get our thinking clear on this* --but it important for the we cannot do evil as a means to obtain the good. The end does not justify the means.

Then the light of truth will illumine our path more brightly.

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. Specifically with regards to just war doctrine we see:

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.104

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."105

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

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.