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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Facite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bookcat said:
No I am not.

The removal of the diseased organ is NOT a morally evil means.

And the principle of totality explains that the removal of a part of a person for saving of the persons life is not a moral evil.

Now if one murdered one of their children to take their organs to transplant them into a person to save the person --that would be a morally evil means and very wrong to do.
Click to expand...
You are skipping over the removal, into removal of the diseased organ. The removal primary. You can’t remove the diseased organ without removing the organ. Disease is the reason, the exception.
Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons
Click to expand...
Your second example isn’t an example of the good outweighing the evil. You are ending a life to save a life. It’s zero sum. A life for a life. It isn’t a greater good you are achieving. You are causing more harm than you are achieving good. It’s not the same construction of doing a smaller evil to achieve a greater good.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
You are skipping over the removal, into removal of the diseased organ. The removal primary.
Click to expand...
No I am not. The removal of the organ is not a moral evil means. If one stole an organ from a living person (who would not die) and implanted it -that would be a morally evil means to saving a person life.

Again my time is limited here – -I refer you to the various sources of the Teachings of the Church and sources of orthodox moral theology -even a whole university course to go into depth.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
You are skipping over the removal, into removal of the diseased organ. The removal primary.
Click to expand...
No I am not. The removal of the organ is not a morally evil means. If one stole an organ from a living person (who would not die) and implanted it **-that **would be a morally evil means to saving a person life.
 
Bookcat said:
No I am not. The removal of the organ is not a moral evil means. If one stole an organ from a living person (who would not die) and implanted it -that would be a morally evil means to saving a person life.
Click to expand...
No, you are talking about theft now. A different sin.

The removal of the organ is a sin. It is a mutilation and causes sterilization. It is allowed because it a means to a greater good of saving a life.

I understand why you find this problematic but it says what it says.
Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
Click to expand...
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
The removal of the organ is a sin…
Click to expand...
No the removal of an organ is not a sin.

If I take out my sword and just go over to you and lop off your arm.

That would be a sin.

If I have you take my sword and just cut off my arm.

That would be a sin.

If I need to have my appendix removed – that is not a sin.

Or say having one of my kidneys removed to give to someone who needs it.

That is not a sin but an act of virtue.

If my wife must have her uterus removed to save her life due to it being cancerous and she will die now if it is not --well that is not a sin.

If she just goes and says -hey lets remove my uterus. That is a sin.
The removal of an organ per se is not a sin.

Some removals are others are not.

To remove the uterus for sterilization is a sin. That* is *sterilization.
 
Again my time is limited here – -I refer you to the various sources of the Teachings of the Church and sources of orthodox moral theology -even a whole university course to go into depth.

Have a blessed day :tiphat:

Here is one source that can help all readers with the Principle of Double effect:

ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=132
 
Bookcat said:
No the removal of an organ is not a sin.

If I take out my sword and just go over to you and lop off your arm.

That would be a sin.

If I have you take my sword and just cut off my arm.

That would be a sin.

If I need to have my appendix removed – that is not a sin.

Or say having one of my kidneys removed to give to someone who needs it.

That is not a sin but an act of virtue.

If my wife must have her uterus removed to save her life due to it being cancerous and she will die now if it is not --well that is not a sin.

If she just goes and says -hey lets remove my uterus. That is a sin.
The removal of an organ per se is not a sin.

Some removals are others are not.

To remove the uterus for sterilization is a sin. That* is *sterilization.
Click to expand...
Again the Catechism reads thusly:
Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
Click to expand...
That means all amputations, mutations and sterilizations are immoral EXCEPT if you are doing them therapeutically. It acknowledges that they are the same procedure. The way it differentiates them is “why” you are doing it. The end justifies the means.

Same procedure different reasons.

As a side note by my reading this would also make cosmetic surgery for vanities’ sake morally wrong. It is mutilation that isn’t therapeutic.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
Again the Catechism reads thusly:

That means all amputations, mutations and sterilizations are immoral EXCEPT if you are doing them therapeutically. It acknowledges that they are the same procedure. The way it differentiates them is “why” you are doing it. The end justifies the means.

Same procedure different reasons.

As a side note by my reading this would also make cosmetic surgery for vanities’ sake morally wrong. It is mutilation that isn’t therapeutic.
Click to expand...
Why are you insisting on separating the fonts of morality?

CCC said:
1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
Click to expand...
Your statement in bold above is not true in all cases. If the means (object) is immoral, the end does not justify it.

CCC said:
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).
Click to expand...
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
Again the Catechism reads thusly:

That means all amputations, mutations and sterilizations are immoral EXCEPT if you are doing them therapeutically. It acknowledges that they are the same procedure. The way it differentiates them is “why” you are doing it. The end justifies the means.

Same procedure different reasons.

As a side note by my reading this would also make cosmetic surgery for vanities’ sake morally wrong. It is mutilation that isn’t therapeutic.
Click to expand...
Again the principles are being misconstrued.

Please see all the many posts above.

Catechism etc etc.

One cannot take a word from the Catechism and try to make it some proof text. It must be understood in the context of the whole…
 
Bookcat said:
No the removal of an organ is not a sin.

If I take out my sword and just go over to you and lop off your arm.

That would be a sin.

If I have you take my sword and just cut off my arm.

That would be a sin.

If I need to have my appendix removed – that is not a sin.

Or say having one of my kidneys removed to give to someone who needs it.

That is not a sin but an act of virtue.

If my wife must have her uterus removed to save her life due to it being cancerous and she will die now if it is not --well that is not a sin.

If she just goes and says -hey lets remove my uterus. That is a sin.
The removal of an organ per se is not a sin.

Some removals are others are not.

To remove the uterus for sterilization is a sin. That* is *sterilization.
Click to expand...
If someone wanted to preform a sterilization for the sake of sterilization (the direct destruction of the persons fertility) such IS sterilization. And is morally evil (even if they think they have a “good intention”)

If a person needed to say have their uterus removed because it was cancerous and was going to kill them - that is not sterilization. The fact that the person will be steril afterwards is an unintended side effect. Not the means.
 
2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.** Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.**
Click to expand...
The catechism makes the formation I don’t. Direct Intended Amputations, Mutations and Sterilizations are against the moral law EXCEPT when performed for therapeutic reasons.

That means that those procedures can be performed under special circumstances. Special circumstances is the means being justified by the ends.

All you’ve been offering is a construction of it’s “wrong because it wrong. So you must be wrong” Yet there it is 🤷 A smaller evil is allowed to achieve a larger good.
 
Bookcat said:
See above.
Click to expand...
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. 😃

You haven’t refuted anything. Repeating “the ends don’t justify the means” ad nauseum doesn’t prove the statement.
Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
Click to expand...
Cancerous Uterus

The end, the intent = Therapeutic Medical Reasons
The means, the method = Mutilation and Sterilization

The end justifies the means. Otherwise The means is against moral law.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. 😃

You haven’t refuted anything. Repeating “the ends don’t justify the means” ad nauseum doesn’t prove the statement.
Click to expand...
Repeating over and over misconceptions of Catholic Moral Teaching or that 2+2 =3 or that a birddog is really a bird cause it sounds like it is a bird --is well simply repeating such. 😉

Please see the Catechism etc
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
Cancerous Uterus

The end, the intent = Therapeutic Medical Reasons
The means, the method = Mutilation and -]Sterilization /-]

The end justifies the means. Otherwise The means is against moral law.
Click to expand...
The end = saving the life of the person.
The means= the operation to remove a cancerous uterus

The end here is good.
The means here is good or indifferent.

Sterilization is NOT the means. It is an unintended side effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top