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

[Roscoe_Turner]

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

I’ve quoted the Catechism directly

I am showing the syllogism, not creating it. It seems that you are denying that 1+1=2, and if you keep repeating that it’s not 2, that suffices. It doesn’t.

People can look to the Catechism and see the construction - the end justifies the means.

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

 

[Bookcat]

I am showing the syllogism, not creating it. It seems that you are denying that 1+1=2, and if you keep repeating that it’s not 2, that suffices. It doesn’t.

The mistake here is thinking one of the numbers is 1 when it is 4

 

[Bookcat]

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.

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…

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

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.

The “operation” is the same as the act of removing the uterus. You are removing the uterus in both cases. It being cancerous is the special condition that makes it allowable.

 

[Bookcat]

The “operation” is the same as the act of removing the uterus. You are removing the uterus in both cases. It being cancerous is the special condition that makes it allowable.

See above.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Hey Roscoe, am I correct in saying that you would take what (apparently) is the deontologist response to the doctor/five patients/one patient scenario that I proposed? If so why is this?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

RT I believe you are confusing means/ends with object/intention (two fonts of a “moral human act.”)

The “removal of an organ” is not a “sin” because “removal of an organ” is not,by itself, a “moral act.” The description is incomplete, reference to intent is missing. Such a free-floating, visible external action is better described as “the act of a man” or “the external act.”

Only full moral acts (with a known purpose) can really be named sinful. To become a “moral act” we must know the agent’s purpose of this action.

The terms “mutilation”, “sterilization”, “amputation” as used in the CCC sentence you quoted are clearly meant to be understood as medical terms describing external, visible procedures…not really human moral acts as you imply.

Thus “mutilation” (as defined by moral theologians) is always an evil human act because it purposes unreasonable damaging of the body. If the “damage” is in fact intended as a healing procedure it may well be justified - and then it is no longer called an act of mutilation but one of amputation or reconstructive surgery or whatever.

So this is not really a good end (healing) justifying an evil means (physical removal of an organ) at all.

What we are doing is defining exactly what sort of “moral object” ther actor is actually purposing. If the physical removal of an organ is purposed for healing then we have at last defined a full human act - and it is good.

“Removing an organ” by itself does not adequately describe a full human act - there is no purpose identified.

Also, this purposeless-action cannot be a “means” for the further reason that “means” appears to refer to a complete human act (with its own standalone intention) that is used to attain a second intention. No 2nd intention (the end) seems to exist in the sorts of scenario you seem to be describing.

Now if you are really saying a “good purpose” (so called “end”) justifies the matter/object of a moral act (the so called “means”) and makes the whole act good…then yes I would generally agree with that.

However the Church teaches that in a few exceptional cases the matter/object may be so disordered that it is not really possible for it to be purposed by a truly good intent (eg murder, contraception, blasphemy).

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

RT I believe you are confusing means/ends with object/intention (two fonts of a “moral human act.”)

The “removal of an organ” is not a “sin” because “removal of an organ” is not,by itself, a “moral act.” The description is incomplete, reference to intent is missing. Such a free-floating, visible external action is better described as “the act of a man” or “the external act.”

Only full moral acts (with a known purpose) can really be named sinful. To become a “moral act” we must know the agent’s purpose of this action.

The terms “mutilation”, “sterilization”, “amputation” as used in the CCC sentence you quoted are clearly meant to be understood as medical terms describing external, visible procedures…not really human moral acts as you imply.

Thus “mutilation” (as defined by moral theologians) is always an evil human act because it purposes unreasonable damaging of the body. If the “damage” is in fact intended as a healing procedure it may well be justified - and then it is no longer called an act of mutilation but one of amputation or reconstructive surgery or whatever.

So this is not really a good end (healing) justifying an evil means (physical removal of an organ) at all.

What we are doing is defining exactly what sort of “moral object” ther actor is actually purposing. If the physical removal of an organ is purposed for healing then we have at last defined a full human act - and it is good.

“Removing an organ” by itself does not adequately describe a full human act - there is no purpose identified.

Also, this purposeless-action cannot be a “means” for the further reason that “means” appears to refer to a complete human act (with its own standalone intention) that is used to attain a second intention. No 2nd intention (the end) seems to exist in the sorts of scenario you seem to be describing.

Now if you are really saying a “good purpose” (so called “end”) justifies the matter/object of a moral act (the so called “means”) and makes the whole act good…then yes I would generally agree with that.

However the Church teaches that in a few exceptional cases the matter/object may be so disordered that it is not really possible for it to be purposed by a truly good intent (eg murder, contraception, blasphemy).

The catechism states:

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

So hacking off someones arm is an amputation regardless of the why. That is morally illicit. If you are doing it for “therapeutic medical reasons” it is morally permissible.

The construction is straight forward. Except for this reason, you can’t do that.

 

[Bookcat]

The catechism states:

So hacking off someones arm is an amputation regardless of the why. That is morally illicit. If you are doing it for “therapeutic medical reasons” it is morally permissible.

The construction is straight forward. Except for this reason, you can’t do that.

Such would be a misreading of the text and not taking into account the full context. See the full context of the Catechism.

It is very important to avoid “proof texting” of kind that isolates a word and then miscontrues it due to the lack of the full context. The above must be understood in the way the Church means --in the full context of what the Catechism Teaches. As another too noted above: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11167814&postcount=254

One could also say:

“Except when performed within marriage and according meaning and nature of the marital act -sexual relations are against the moral law.”

If one where to say this --say in some discussion with someone -it would be true. But in so saying such – the word except there does NOT mean that such is an “exception” to those acts --as if the “end justifies the means” for the marital act is a good act. As can be needful surgery which is consistent with Christian morality.

 

[Bookcat]

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).39

Removing an organ of the body is NOT intrinsically disordered.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

 

[Bookcat]

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).39

Removing an organ of the body is NOT intrinsically disordered.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together…

An intrinsically evil object --like fornication or murder --can never been done --even if there is a good intention and some special circumstances.

No good intention can justify one to do an intrinsically evil means.

But object that can be good --like a good surgery (removing an organ) can be done when it is good and with a good intention etc.

A means (like surgery) can be a good means. Surgery is not an intrinsically evil moral object. It can be very very good.

Surgery can also be evil --like aborting a baby.

 

[Bookcat]

Shooting a gun is not an intrinsic evil.

There is good gun shooting according to reason. Good or neutral gun shooting.

And then there is evil gun shooting.

Adultery on the other hand is an* intrinsic evil* (evil in itself)-- one can never commit adultery for some “good intention” and it be a good thing. There is no “good adultery”. The end (intention) can not justify it. Cannot make it “good adultery”.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The idea of moral object is one that I find spurious.

It separates the morality from the act. It’s not the consequence, and it’s not the intent. It’s the intent to do evil or good.

One example: You can have an act of self defense that is murderous. Take an abused wife. If backed into a corner she could become so angry that their only thought is I want to kill them. Her life may be truly in danger but the intention was to murder the other person with no thought of saving their own life. Hate drove the action. A good was achieved, they saved their own life. In retrospect we can rationalize that it was self defense and a justified killing. In the moment of the act it wasn’t the case.

There are a couple of choices, we have a “good” coming from an evil act. An act of murder saved their life. Or you could say that saving their own life was sinful because it came from an intrinsically evil act, even if it was justifiably self defense from an outside observer, they just weren’t thinking of it that way at the time.

 

[Bookcat]

If something seems spurious here – the difficulty is in our understanding --fissures in* our *thought on the matter.

It can often take more time and study to arrive deeper understanding of this difficult topic. In order to make the right distinctions and clear away misunderstandings indeed to see the beauty and splendor of the Churches Teaching on this or other matters.

I wish all a most pleasant eventide.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

If something seems spurious here – the difficulty is in our understanding --fissures in* our *thought on the matter.

It can often take more time and study to arrive deeper understanding of this difficult topic. In order to make the right distinctions and clear away misunderstandings indeed to see the beauty and splendor of the Churches Teaching on this or other matters.

I wish all a most pleasant eventide.

For me it’s relying on Aristotelian metaphysics, concepts like species. Aristotle was wrong about pretty much everything except syllogism.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The catechism states:

So hacking off someones arm is an amputation regardless of the why. That is morally illicit. If you are doing it for “therapeutic medical reasons” it is morally permissible.

The construction is straight forward. Except for this reason, you can’t do that.

Roscoe have you actually studied any Catholic Moral Theology or are you self-taught?
The CCC is a summary not a course in moral theology and it cannot be expected to articulate the very tight Thomist philosophical underpinnings of its statements.

Your above statement suggests you do not really understand what a moral human act is in Moral Theology.

An objedctive physical action (eg amputation) is not yet a human act and therefore cannot be called good, bad sad or mad. Therefore it is not yet in the category “moral” (moral means an act involving known human choice, intention and purpose.)

This is a Moral Theology forum. If you don’t possess the basic cooking skills I suggest you stay out of the kitchen or assume a more open stance so those who actually are trained chefs may be able to dialogue rationally with you .

I repeat, we need to know why the “amputee” wanted his arm amputated before we can judge the moral nature of that human act. If his purpose was to live then this amputation is good. If it was because he lost a bet (“I’ll bet my right arm…”) then it is evil. Evil acts of amputation are called mutilations. “Mutilation” describes a complete human act which involves disordered purpose.

That is why “mutilation” is a always an intrinsically evil act so far as Moral Theology is concerned.

“Multilation”, in medical terms, is not the same. Doctors commonly mean just the “object” or external “procedure” of the moral act which is always neutral if intention/purpose is unknown.

This is where you are going wrong and why you misundertand the CCC.
You think theologians and doctors use these words in the same way. They don’t.

I accept that the CCC (in English as translated by the USBishops Conference) is translated poorly re the word “mutilation” - but then the CCC is not meant for moral theology students but for ordinary lay people. Clearly the word “mutilation” is meant in a neutral medical procedure sense.

If you check the Latin CCC (ie the original one published by the Moral Theologians of the Vatican) I believe you will find the word translated to “mutilation” prob has no pejorative overtones at all.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Roscoe have you actually studied any Catholic Moral Theology or are you self-taught?
The CCC is a summary not a course in moral theology and it cannot be expected to articulate the very tight Thomist philosophical underpinnings of its statements.

Your above statement suggests you do not really understand what a moral human act is in Moral Theology.

An objedctive physical action (eg amputation) is not yet a human act and therefore cannot be called good, bad sad or mad. Therefore it is not yet in the category “moral” (moral means an act involving known human choice, intention and purpose.)

This is a Moral Theology forum. If you don’t possess the basic cooking skills I suggest you stay out of the kitchen or assume a more open stance so those who actually are trained chefs may be able to dialogue rationally with you .

I repeat, we need to know why the “amputee” wanted his arm amputated before we can judge the moral nature of that human act. If his purpose was to live then this amputation is good. If it was because he lost a bet (“I’ll bet my right arm…”) then it is evil. Evil acts of amputation are called mutilations. “Mutilation” describes a complete human act which involves disordered purpose.

That is why “mutilation” is a always an intrinsically evil act so far as Moral Theology is concerned.

“Multilation”, in medical terms, is not the same. Doctors commonly mean just the “object” or external “procedure” of the moral act which is always neutral if intention/purpose is unknown.

This is where you are going wrong and why you misundertand the CCC.
You think theologians and doctors use these words in the same way. They don’t.

I accept that the CCC (in English as translated by the USBishops Conference) is translated poorly re the word “mutilation” - but then the CCC is not meant for moral theology students but for ordinary lay people. Clearly the word “mutilation” is used in its normal english lay sense (simply describing a non-moral external medical procedure).

If you check the Latin CCC (ie the actual CCC) I believe you will find the word translated to “mutilation” prob has no pejorative overtones at all.

I understand it, I just don’t think it’s a valid construction. I studied philosophy, religion and art after attending a Jesuit HS but that has little to do with the validity of my argument. It stands on it’s own.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I understand it, I just don’t think it’s a valid construction. I studied philosophy, religion and art but that has little to do with the validity of my argument. It stands on it’s own.

RT I am sorry but you clearly haven’t studied Catholic Thomistic Moral Theology and neither do you fully understand Aristotle’s syllogistic logic. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.

For syllogisms to be valid it is also required that words/definitions use in each premise have exactly the same meaning.

I have just very reasonably demonstrated to you that there are various defintions of “mutilation”, some are perjorative (eg Catholic Moral Theology sees the word as defining a complete human act with a disordered intention) and some are neutral (eg its just a neutral, non-moral physical procedure with no reference to any purpose good bad mad or sad).

Your “unshakeable” reasoning really goes no further than the following:

Margarine is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than butter
Therefore margarine is better than butter.

This absurd conclusion is due to the “fallacy of equivocation” … thinking that the word “nothing” is used the same way in each of the first two premises.

Try not to be so black and white in these sorts of discussions, real life isn’t actually like that .

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

RT I am sorry but you clearly haven’t studied Catholic Thomistic Moral Theology and neither do you fully understand Aristotle’s syllogistic logic. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.

For syllogisms to be valid it is also required that words/definitions use in each premise have exactly the same meaning.

I have just very reasonably demonstrated to you that there are various defintions of “mutilation”, some are perjorative (eg Catholic Moral Theology sees the word as defining a complete human act with a disordered intention) and some are neutral (eg its just a neutral, non-moral physical procedure with no reference to any purpose good bad mad or sad).

Your “unshakeable” reasoning really goes no further than the following:

Margarine is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than butter
Therefore margarine is better than butter.

This absurd conclusion is due to the “fallacy of equivocation” … thinking that the word “nothing” is used the same way in each of the first two premises.

Try not to be so black and white in these sorts of discussions, real life isn’t actually like that .

If you’d like to address what I’ve said rather than me, I’d love to have a conversation. Your inability to address what I’ve said doesn’t make me wrong. Granted it doesn’t make me right but it doesn’t look good.

I’ve given an example of murderous intent in regards to a self defense situation, would you like to address it?

Ad hominem, while it works well in politics fails miserably in Philosophy.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The idea of moral object is one that I find spurious.

It separates the morality from the act. It’s not the consequence, and it’s not the intent. It’s the intent to do evil or good.

One example: You can have an act of self defense that is murderous. Take an abused wife. If backed into a corner she could become so angry that their only thought is I want to kill them. Her life may be truly in danger but the intention was to murder the other person with no thought of saving their own life. Hate drove the action. A good was achieved, they saved their own life. In retrospect we can rationalize that it was self defense and a justified killing. In the moment of the act it wasn’t the case.

There are a couple of choices, we have a “good” coming from an evil act. An act of murder saved their life. Or you could say that saving their own life was sinful because it came from an intrinsically evil act, even if it was justifiably self defense from an outside observer, they just weren’t thinking of it that way at the time.

**The idea of moral object is one that I find spurious. It separates the morality from the act. **
That’s fine. It explains why you don’t have the skill to correctly understand the English CCC when it is ambiguous in some places.

Given that you strongly disagree with mainstream Catholic Moral Theology … what makes you think that this single, ambiguous CCC article actually backs you up when you know the CCC as a whole is based on the Moral Theology that you reject?

This seems silly and unreasonable.

Just invent your own moral theology and argue from real-world examples - lets drop the pretence that the CCC supports your rejection of mainstream Catholic Moral Theology principles.

Now to your real-world analysis that allegedly stands on its own merits…

You can have an act of self defense that is murderous

Sorry, Catholics would see this as a contradiction in terms.

If an external action (killing someone) was done with the intended purpose of saving oneself with the minimal force necessary then the complete human act is good and it is called an act of self-defence.

If in fact, only known to yourself, you truly intended to murder, then this intention/purpose almost irresistably “incarnates” itself into the visible external act as a disordered use of force far in excess of what was required. This in fact would be one of the ways in which either a jury (or my own conscience) would tell me what my true intent was. That would be called “murder” …though given the object/matter circumstances probably a lesser evil of culpable “homicide” because the attacker is not exactly an “innocent.”

Rage or emotions equivalent to “I am going to do kill you” may accompany an intent/purpose but they are not exactly the same. “I am going to kill you” sounds more like a verbalised intent/purpose and not an emotion of rage/anger. Emotions tend to be more blind and generic and we often don’t know what they mean until afterwards.

If it was the pure rage that drove the killing then, again, if the force was excessive and hence disordered then this act is more like “murder” or “culpabale homicide” but it may not be a fully moral act because of the strong emotion. We would prob still call it “culpabale homicide” but no sin may be imputable due to loss of control.

It separates the morality from the act.
I do not think you are clear in your own mind what either “an act” is or what makes it “moral.”

If I stab you while I am sleep walking… is that a human act … or just the neutral action of a human? Can people also “sleep-walk” with their eyes open during the day in a less obvious sense? If I act under very strong emotion am I really committing fully free human acts?

I do not think you have thought through your self-invented, intuitive morality very far.
The wisest minds in the Church have been doing so for 1000s of years.

If I didn’t understand my Church’s moral theology I would spend a lot of time making sure I actually understood it properly before coming out with the new wheel you are trying to invent here.