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

[underacloud]

underacloud;11142891:

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.

You’re contradicting yourself here. “You didn’t mean it” but “you meant it”.

Yes, one can pull a trigger without intending to kill. Police do it all the time and are trained to do so. In deadly situations, it happens to be the case that it is best to aim for the largest part of the aggressor as possible, being their torso. That also happens to be a potentially lethal area of the body to aim at, so death is a possible, but not intended, outcome.

A skilled marksman may be able to disarm/disable an aggressor with precision shooting. Most people are not capable of this and have the best chances of defending themselves or others by aiming for “centre mass”. When police shoot centre mass, they shoot to stop, not shoot to kill.

Again, possible death is acceptable under the principle of double effect. There is no intent to kill, but an acceptance of that possibility.

And again, shooting a gun is a morally neutral activity. It’s morality depends on intent (why you shoot) and circumstances (what you are shooting at). In self defense, the intent is to stop an unjust aggressor, which is morally acceptable.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

If say some dictator had chemicals added to the drinking water so his people would die. That is yes certainly murder.

If the head of some company dumped some chemicals into the water knowing the children down stream would die cause well he thinks there are too many of them…
Such would fit murder.

But a company who just thinks they are dumping some chemicals -then then later they find out causes cancer --that would not really go under “murder”.

There are all sorts of grave offenses that are not “murder”. And all sorts that are gravely contrary to the life and good of persons.

So who’s guilty of the murder?

What about causing famine? Is it murder?

 

[Bookcat]

So who’s guilty of the murder?

What about causing famine? Is it murder?

Here this will help

Catechism
**
Intentional homicide **

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

*Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority. *

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of* indirectly *bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
*
The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71 *

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2320

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

That’s why I asked because it is in the catechism. So it’s not murder.

 

[Bookcat]

That’s why I asked because it is in the catechism. So it’s not murder.

There are as I noted various very grave sins against human life besides “murder per se”

 

[Bookcat]

I think the thread has run its course. And off course.

Readers can read the various posts from the Catechism and Compendium for answer to the original question above.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

This thread has indeed run its course, but it’s just mostly been everybody except roscoe eluding refutation. He has provided plenty of arguments to prove his claim, you have all just endlessly quoted the same CCC paragraphs. If you guys believe he’s wrong then look for a flaw in his arguments. Repeatedly asserting your conclusion, as if it were a valid assumption, does not refute him. Since reason is to be trusted above the words of humans, what you guys are doing is not philosophically valid.

 

[underacloud]

This thread has indeed run its course, but it’s just mostly been everybody except roscoe eluding refutation. He has provided plenty of arguments to prove his claim, you have all just endlessly quoted the same CCC paragraphs. If you guys believe he’s wrong then look for a flaw in his arguments. Repeatedly asserting your conclusion, as if it were a valid assumption, does not refute him. Since reason is to be trusted above the words of humans, what you guys are doing is not philosophically valid.

Roscoe has quoted a lot from the Catechism too. Being a moral theology forum on a Catholic website, it is generally consider that the CCC is a good basis for discussions. Nonetheless, it is simply false to say that “you have all just endlessly quoted the same CCC”. For example, I have not.

Moreover, reason is not to be trusted more than the word of God. Reason, as exercised by humans, is prone to failure, which is why God has needed to inject His law at various points in human history, including the law that we may not do evil that good may come of it, as taught by St Paul and then the Church.

Some people may be quite happy to examine this complex philosophical issue in greater depth, but at the moment we seem to be stuck trying to examine the moral difference between murder and other forms of killing, eg self defense, which makes a deeper consideration impossible for now. At 10 pages, I think we’ve hit a wall.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

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.

Good point!

Why can’t you choose the lesser of 2 evils? To do one evil to prevent an even greater evil is just choosing the lesser of 2 evils. Also to do nothing in the face of evil is just as wrong. If you saw someone trying to kill a child and it was either kill him or let the child be killed, is it wrong to kill him to save the child? It would be just as wrong to do nothing too.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This thread has indeed run its course

I think you may be correct.

My general premise is this; That the meter that is offered to judge morality is constructed in such a way to offer comfort to people who’s position in life requires them to do morally questionable things but is inconstant logically.

On one hand you have offering pain medication to relieve suffering, it isn’t considered euthanasia because of the doctrine of double effect. First it is assessed that giving drugs to relieve pain is morally neutral so if it hastens the death of the patient it is an unfortunate side effect. Usually the dosage increases over time. In reality the final dosage given originally would have killed the patient but because it done gradually it is given a moral pass. The same results happen albeit more slowly.

The giving of the drugs is divorced from the context of the situation in order to asses it’s initial moral neutrality. If that same criteria is applied to the sexual act or killing the context is immediately assessed. You can’t judge the morality without the context. You can’t asses if killing is murder without the context and intent.

Like my example of the two bombers. Both bomb the same building and innocents are killed. Bombing isn’t morally neutral. It is a destructive act but if the intention is good it gets a pass. One is guilty morally because he may have had malice in his intent where the other “just doing his job” or “I’m just following orders” gets a moral pass.The defense didn’t work in Nuremberg

 

[Bookcat]

This thread has indeed run its course, but it’s just mostly been everybody except roscoe eluding refutation. He has provided plenty of arguments to prove his claim, you have all just endlessly quoted the same CCC paragraphs. If you guys believe he’s wrong then look for a flaw in his arguments. Repeatedly asserting your conclusion, as if it were a valid assumption, does not refute him. Since reason is to be trusted above the words of humans, what you guys are doing is not philosophically valid.

Must have missed many of the posts… But that can be understandable it is a long thread by now.
Also this is a Catholic Moral Theology Forum – not a “let build from the ground up” all arguments- as in some philosophical debate or paper.

The Church has been quite well set forth the various principles etc involved.

That being said -posts have been philosophically valid and theologically true. One does not have to “reinvent the wheel” to answer a question on a Catholic Moral Theology forum.

 

[Bookcat]

I think you may be correct.

My general premise is this; That the meter that is offered to judge morality is constructed in such a way to offer comfort to people who’s position in life requires them to do morally questionable things but is inconstant logically.

A premise that is incorrect. As with some of the other premise’s that have been set forth here in this thread-- there are often simply misunderstandings, partial views etc at work that do not allow clear vision as to what the Church Teaches in its full breadth. With more time and some good sources (or even a university course to delve deep -I hear Steubenville now has online courses) – things can fall into place and one will see the beautiful panorama of the Churches Teaching. It is a difficult subject and the Church has well addressed the blind alleys that get involved in such questions.

The approach here is far form being geared to “seeking to comfort” —indeed the Gospel involves beauty and true life –yes --but such involves truth-- not the “wide” easy path --self denial, the cross, the cost of discipleship, martyrdom, love … the “narrow gate” …not a comfy couch where a person or group simply finds justification for what one wants to do.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

A premise that is incorrect. As with some of the other premise’s that have been set forth here in this thread-- there are often simply misunderstandings, partial views etc at work that do not allow clear vision as to what the Church Teaches in its full breadth. With more time and some good sources (or even a university course to delve deep -I hear Steubenville now has online courses) – things can fall into place and one will see the beautiful panorama of the Churches Teaching. It is a difficult subject and the Church has well addressed the blind alleys that get involved in such questions.

The approach here is far form being geared to “seeking to comfort” —indeed the Gospel involves beauty and true life –yes --but such involves truth-- not the “wide” easy path --self denial, the cross, the cost of discipleship, martyrdom, love … the “narrow gate” …not a comfy couch where a person or group simply finds justification for what one wants to do.

The premise is valid logic.

Whom does your vision of Christ drop bombs on? Didn’t the martyrs have a right, drive and obligation to self defense? A point passed over but made earlier Jesus allowed himself to be killed, His human nature’s abilities surpassed other humans as we can see in the performing of miracles. He must have had other options available to Him. Why wasn’t He a military Messiah. He would be morally correct in fighting the Romans that had invaded and concurred the Jewish homeland.

I stand with the assertion that the doctrine of double effect is offered as comfort to those that have to preform morally questionable duties. They are duties that are important to our corporal lives but not to our spiritual ones. It is an attempt by the Church to meet the State half way. A nation of people freely given to sacrificing their lives and unwilling to take another’s isn’t long for the world.

Again, who would Jesus bomb?

 

[Bookcat]

This thread has gone off the rails --so I will not continue here (and it tis too time consuming …)

I bid all great joy and light for their paths and I refer readers and all to the Teachings of the Church --the Catechism etc --which addresses that the ends do not justify the means, sins and crimes against human life such as murder, the principles involved in just war and making correct moral judgments and living a life of virtue and love etc

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This thread has gone off the rails --so I will not continue here (and it tis too time consuming …)

I bid all great joy and light for their paths and I refer readers and all to the Teachings of the Church --the Catechism etc --which addresses that the ends do not justify the means, sins and crimes against human life such as murder, the principles involved in just war and making correct moral judgments and living a life of virtue and love etc

Thanks for putting in the time.

I still say you can read all the catechism you’d like but it still doesn’t answer who Jesus would bomb.

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks for putting in the time.

.

May the Lord bless you and fill you with joy.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

May the Lord bless you and fill you with joy.

I wish the same for you.

 

[davidv]

Thanks for putting in the time.

I still say you can read all the catechism you’d like but it still doesn’t answer who Jesus would bomb.

How is the answer to this question relevant to the OP?

The basic answer to the OP question is that there are some moral objects that are intrinsically immoral and cannot be justified by the intended end, nor any mitigating circumstances.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

How is the answer to this question relevant to the OP?

The basic answer to the OP question is that there are some moral objects that are intrinsically immoral and cannot be justified by the intended end, nor any mitigating circumstances.

It addresses killing in duty of civil authority. It points to the absurdity of it from the perspective of Christ. If civil defense is justified killing according to the catechism - Who would Jesus bomb? Does your vision of Christ have him killing people in the name of the common good? When He walked the earth a military force occupied the land of his people. He didn’t take up arms. He called us to follow Him and love each other. Who would Jesus bomb? I don’t think anyone. Do you?

 

[underacloud]

I stand with the assertion that the doctrine of double effect is offered as comfort to those that have to preform morally questionable duties. They are duties that are important to our corporal lives but not to our spiritual ones. It is an attempt by the Church to meet the State half way. A nation of people freely given to sacrificing their lives and unwilling to take another’s isn’t long for the world.

The alternative is what?

That we never do anything because any good act has potential adverse effects too?

Medical science grinds to a halt because most treatments have adverse side effects. You can’t treat cancer because chemo or radio therapy will make you sick; not as sick as the cancer, but without double effect we can’t weigh those effects and decide proportionally that it’s best to treat the cancer.

You can’t defend yourself if someone attacks you, because you may cause them some harm in defending yourself.

You can’t create needed infrustructure, such as dams to provide drinking water, since there may be adverse effects on the local flora and fauna. People will die through lack of drinking water, but that little family of rodents living where the dam would go are safe from harm.

You can’t drive a car, since accidents happen and people die. Modern society grinds to a halt, but at least we’ve dealt with the road toll issue.

To an extent you have inherently recognised one reality here: that double effect is needed due to our living in a fallen world. In the new kingdom the need for such will pass, but in this world, our “corporal lives”, we need this principle to allow us to act in moral ways. Without it, we find that we can’t act at all.

If you want to explore this further, it’s time for a new thread as it is a new topic. I’m sure people will be ready to offer sources so you can understand this principle better.