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

[Bookcat]

John 15:13

How are you going to lay down your life if you are fighting to preserve it?

N.B. This is a commandment.

Same answer

One must understand and apply as the Church does – “he who hears you hears me”

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

Legitimate defense

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.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2263

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Same answer

One must understand and apply as the Church does – “he who hears you hears me”

It lacks support and is circular. The Church is correct because it is the Church.

I do think the Church’s teaching brings comfort those that have to kill and therefor beneficial but there isn’t support for it in the gospels.

 

[Bookcat]

It lacks support and is circular. The Church is correct because it is the Church.

I do think the Church’s teaching brings comfort those that have to kill and therefor beneficial but there isn’t support for it in the gospels.

Jesus founded a Church and gave her authority to teach etc – Jesus did not give us a moral dictionary and say here. He founded a Church which is guided by him …guided by the Holy Spirit. He who hears you hears me.

If I am the boss of a company. And I say “do this and do that” and then I leave and say that while I am away – the person I put in charge is to be listened to --that to hear him is to hear me – that he is the one to gets to decide etc My employees need to listen to him. Or they can find another job. A simple analogy and all such limp.

Jesus did not hand us a book -he formed a Church and gave that Church authority and mission and the Holy Spirit.

as to the latter–

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 Church does not “change the truth” to comfort those who act against it. She calls a spade a spade.

Indeed a duck a duck and a goose a goose.

Not into “comfy” solutions --but discipleship. Truth and Love --even if difficult.

(though she seeks to help those in need --even who live in grave sin - seeking their healing…etc to bring them truth and love and hope)

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Jesus founded a Church and gave her authority to teach etc – Jesus did not give us a moral dictionary and say here. He founded a Church which is guided by him …guided by the Holy Spirit. He who hears you hears me.

If I am the boss of a company. And I say “do this and do that” and then I leave and say that while I am away – the person I put in charge is to be listened to --that to hear him is to hear me – that he is the one to gets to decide etc My employees need to listen to him. Or they can find another job. A simple analogy and all such limp.

Jesus did not hand us a book -he formed a Church and gave that Church authority and mission and the Holy Spirit.

as to the latter–

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 Church does not “change the truth” to comfort those who act against it. She calls a spade a spade.

Indeed a duck a duck and a goose a goose.

Not into “comfy” solutions --but discipleship. Truth and Love --even if difficult.

(though she seeks to help those in need --even who live in grave sin - seeking their healing…etc to bring them truth and love and hope)

I’m trying to get at “what is the Catechism based on” in terms of the three situations where taking a life is justified not apostolic succession.

Matt 10:28

And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Roscoe this is a common issue in these debates.
It boils down to different groups defining these realities differently.
In the USA Criminal law Courts seem to define Homicide as unjust, though milder than Murder. Many countries have no such criminal category and colloquially homicide is just a weird technical way of saying “someone was killed”.

However the Catholic Moral Theology seems to use the word homicide to just mean the simple fact of someone being intentionally killed by another. Whether that is unjust killing of an innocent (murder which is evil) or capital punishment (also acceptable to the Catholic Church) or self-defence (which is also acceptable to the Catholic Church if the violence used is the min necessary to save onself) requires further information. This further information helps us define the “moral object”, the thing that the agent actually purposed.

 

[Bookcat]

I’m trying to get at “what is the Catechism based on” in terms of the three situations where taking a life is justified not apostolic succession.

Ok --The basics have been given in the thread I think.

Also it is important for understanding to read Scripture from within the Church. As the Church reads Scripture. Tis the way Jesus gave us.

Perhaps a course in Moral Theology can be of help to delve more deeply-- I understand Franciscan University of Steubenville even has online courses --you may want to check such out -for then one can delve more deeply than a forum permits -tis an excellent school.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Greetings CAF!

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

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

Could anyone clear up my dilemma?

Thanks,
Facite

Ultimately its about a Christian understanding of the human person.
We do not make ourtselves better persons primarily by always purposing good temporal results.
We become better persons by always purposing Good full stop.

This means that even the instrumental means by which we gain the final good temporal results we seek must also be of good purpose.

To do otherwise is really to have one foot on the accelerator and one foot on the brake.

Goodness is primarily about the promoting of the goodness of our own character - not that of the external world. Usually they are one and the same. But in a broken world they often come into conflict - though experience and wisdom often reveals alternative good means which are invariably a bit more difficult than we would have originally wanted.
In rare cases we are called to accept temporal suffering and loss lest we damage our own soul. What does it profit a man…

This only makes sense to those who believe in God and an afterlife.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Ok --The basics have been given in the thread I think.

Also it is important for understanding to read Scripture from within the Church. As the Church reads Scripture. Tis the way Jesus gave us.

Perhaps a course in Moral Theology can be of help to delve more deeply-- I understand Franciscan University of Steubenville even has online courses --you may want to check such out -for then one can delve more deeply than a forum permits -tis an excellent school.

No, you’ve just pointed to the Catechism, not the underlying biblical support of the Catechism. But I think we’ve taken this as far as you can. Thanks for your time.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Roscoe this is a common issue in these debates.
It boils down to different groups defining these realities differently.
In the USA Criminal law Courts seem to define Homicide as unjust, though milder than Murder. Many countries have no such criminal category and colloquially homicide is just a weird technical way of saying “someone was killed”.

However the Catholic Moral Theology seems to use the word homicide to just mean the simple fact of someone being intentionally killed by another. Whether that is unjust killing of an innocent (murder which is evil) or capital punishment (also acceptable to the Catholic Church) or self-defence (which is also acceptable to the Catholic Church if the violence used is the min necessary to save onself) requires further information. This further information helps us define the “moral object”, the thing that the agent actually purposed.

Thank you,

I do understand the construction, I just find it flawed.

4Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil, for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You have anointed my head with oil;
My cup overflows.
6 Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

 

[Bookcat]

No, you’ve just pointed to the Catechism, not the underlying biblical support of the Catechism. But I think we’ve taken this as far as you can. Thanks for your time.

We have discussed at length many things in this thread.

Not sure really what your wanting.

But certainly not everything is intended to be in the Bible.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

We have discussed at length many things in this thread.

Not sure really what your wanting.

But certainly not everything is intended to be in the Bible.

Not the biblical basis for just war. Augustine and Aquinas realized that people were going to wage war so how can we wage war in a just way. It was a concession. A lesser of two evils. They didn’t point to the bible and say see Jesus wants war.

 

[Bookcat]

Not the lesser of two evils.

Rather “just war”. In a just war the evils that happen are unintended effects.

 

[Bookcat]

Not the biblical basis for just war. Augustine and Aquinas realized that people were going to wage war so how can we wage war in a just way. It was a concession. A lesser of two evils.

We discussed what various Scriptural verses mean and importantly for this off the tracks discussion – do not mean.

As for the rest

Not the lesser of two evils.

Rather “just war”. In a just war the evils that happen are unintended effects.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You’ve just been pointing to the catechism. I still think you can fertilize the feilds with double effect. Who would Jesus bomb?

 

[Bookcat]

Who would Jesus bomb?

Such is like asking who would Jesus marry? .or what movie would Jesus watch?

Come on.

---

Jesus has given us his Church.

The Church which tackles the questions of the 21st century and bombs and what not…

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Such is like asking who would Jesus marry? .or what movie would Jesus watch?

Come on.

---

Jesus has given us his Church.

The Church which tackles the questions of the 21st century and bombs and what not…

You could only correlate them if you give them context. The film Last Tempation of Christ was one such speculation. The human condition hasn’t changed just because technology makes the details different. It’s a cop out. In war innocent people die on both sides the good of the action depends on your perspective. Everyone who’s responsible for killing has their hands dirty. Just following orders into the gas chamber. Who’s babies would Jesus bomb?

 

[DanAl]

Greetings CAF!

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

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

Could anyone clear up my dilemma?

Thanks,
Facite

Simply put? God ought to be loved above everything and part of loving God consists in following his commandments.

 

[Starrsmother]

I’m not a theologian but in a class on Catholic belief that I once took this was discussed at some length. Someone brought up an example of lying to the authorities in Nazi Germany to protect Jewish victims. We were told that lying is lying and that we must not assume that we–rather than God–are in charge of a situation. Another way of saying it is that God told us not to lie. He didn’t add the word “unless” at the end of the statement. I admit that there are situations when it is hard to accept that the absolute truth is more beneficial than a lie. However, if we trust in God then we must not be so full of pride that we decide that what we think is greater than what God knows. To me, telling the absolute truth is one of the most difficult things that we are asked to do in this life. (sigh…)

 

[Bookcat]

In war innocent people die on both sides the good of the action depends on your perspective. Everyone who’s responsible for killing has their hands dirty. Just following orders into the gas chamber. Who’s babies would Jesus bomb?

Giving examples of unjust war – is well doing just that. One is not to “bomb babies” one is to protect babies.

Such has nothing to do with understanding just war except that one sees examples of unjust war. So one knows what a just war is not.

I refer you and all reader to the what the Church teaches about a just war. And it is NOT that war is something to engage in like say going to the movies or going out for a dinner. It something that should over all be avoided. But in this world that is fallen -where evil men kill whole races of people and attack your country to murder your children and wives and those of your neighbor -there yes can be a just war (taking into account again all that defines such).

Jesus expects Fathers to defend their children from murderer.

(I will leave you for now-it does not seem to go anywhere – – again time is limited–may pleasant dreams be had by all.)