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

[Roscoe_Turner]

I did not change the scene; your original words were: " Her life may be truly in danger". With human courts, the actual act is required before we can say that something will happen, otherwise as humans watching humans, we can only offer conjecture, therefore saying “one of them was going to die” is an impossible statement for a human to know (while possible for God to know).
Thinking about the possibility of death (not the certainty) with “reason” and “considering” possible means for avoiding a “possible evil of death”, provides optional choices to anyone who is using reason. 1. Kill him, 2. Call the police. 3. Run / move out, etc.
You can have no “choices of means to the end of avoiding possible evil of death” if you do not use your reason, but act immediately from an appetite’s first response. You may call it a “good” that she is alive, but she calls it an evil because she recognizes that she did not use her reason to consider and choose an alternative.

As to the “child of adultery”. Adultery (evil) did not cause the child, but sexual union (good) caused the child (good). Evil is the “unreasoned” abuse of a good. The good itself still has effects, but the evil (adultery) also has its effects (such as the possibility of the child suffering a tarnished reputation of being called a “child of adultery”).

John Martin

If she’s literally backed into a corner, she can’t run, she can’t call the police. He’s attacking her physically. A physical response or laying down and dying are the two choices. She chooses to respond physically.

The only difference in a “moral” and the “immoral” act is her attitude about it. If she was acting only in self defense it would be a moral act. If she acting out of hate it’s immoral.

To the outside observer it would look the same. The end result (physical) would be the same. The abuser would be dead and she is alive.

If her intentions were pure we would say it was an act of self defense so not illicit the good was preserved.

If her intentions were not pure we can say it was murder with a secondary effect of self defense.

The reason for why the case of self defense is a good (preservation of life) is also present in the illicit example. The life was preserved. A good comes from the illicit act.

In the case of adultery you can’t separate the sexual act from the adultery. If there is no sexual act there is no adultery. Adultery is an illicit sexual act. If a child is produced it comes from an illicit sexual act (named Adultery.)

 

[John_Martin]

If she’s literally backed into a corner, she can’t run, she can’t call the police. He’s attacking her physically. A physical response or laying down and dying are the two choices. She chooses to respond physically.

The only difference in a “moral” and the “immoral” act is her attitude about it. If she was acting only in self defense it would be a moral act. If she acting out of hate it’s immoral.

To the outside observer it would look the same. The end result (physical) would be the same. The abuser would be dead and she is alive.

If her intentions were pure we would say it was an act of self defense so not illicit the good was preserved.

If her intentions were not pure we can say it was murder with a secondary effect of self defense.

The reason for why the case of self defense is a good (preservation of life) is also present in the illicit example. The life was preserved. A good comes from the illicit act.

In the case of adultery you can’t separate the sexual act from the adultery. If there is no sexual act there is no adultery. Adultery is an illicit sexual act. If a child is produced it comes from an illicit sexual act (named Adultery.)

Most of my words are sufficient answers to you and you are simply choosing to try and be right, trying to win a discussion.

As to separating the sexual act from adultery, that, also, is fairly evident.
The effects of sexual relations (good) are physical pleasure (good), and possibly conception (good). A human, having reason, knows and thinks about the correctness of the circumstances attendant on acts. In this case the circumstances are the identity of the other person and the self, being married to different people. And, in defiance of reason, they try to steal what is good out of their separate marriage unions and try to experience good illicitly. They do experience good things, but they do not cause the good things. Physical body makeup causes the good sensations, and the child. Their theft (adulterous joining) causes shame, guilt, fear of discovery, blame, and loss of eternal life. They refused to accept the circumstance that they were not married to each other, but to other people, but instead stole sex from each other and from each other’s spouses. This is true whether through an actual sexual act or also from just looking after the other with lust in your heart, as we have learned from our King.
Now it is evident that a sin is caused by a defect in some circumstance: because the fact that a man departs from the order of reason is due to his not observing the due circumstances in his action. Wherefore it is evident that it is natural for a sin to be aggravated by reason of its circumstances. This happens in three ways. First, in so far as a circumstance draws a sin from one kind to another: thus fornication is the intercourse of a man with one who is not his wife: but if to this be added the circumstance that the latter is the wife of another, the sin is drawn to another kind of sin, viz. injustice, in so far as he usurps another’s property; and in this respect adultery is a more grievous sin than fornication. (St. Thomas Aquinas ST I-II 73:7)
As a Catholic, I accept that the Church’s doctrines on faith and morals, without question they are the truth. I may question them to explain the meaning, which I find in people like Thomas, and I learn more that way. but you are intending to suggest that we abandon the Church’s ruling on morality for your own understanding of the end justifying the means. That is not a possible understanding for a Catholic, no matter what arguments you might put out or how reasonable you may think they sound. It won’t happen. We are pledged with our lives to stand with Church doctrine (and we really do believe it, and many understand its implications).

John Martin

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Most of my words are sufficient answers to you and you are simply choosing to try and be right, trying to win a discussion.

As to separating the sexual act from adultery, that, also, is fairly evident.
The effects of sexual relations (good) are physical pleasure (good), and possibly conception (good). A human, having reason, knows and thinks about the correctness of the circumstances attendant on acts. In this case the circumstances are the identity of the other person and the self, being married to different people. And, in defiance of reason, they try to steal what is good out of their separate marriage unions and try to experience good illicitly. They do experience good things, but they do not cause the good things. Physical body makeup causes the good sensations, and the child. Their theft (adulterous joining) causes shame, guilt, fear of discovery, blame, and loss of eternal life. They refused to accept the circumstance that they were not married to each other, but to other people, but instead stole sex from each other and from each other’s spouses. This is true whether through an actual sexual act or also from just looking after the other with lust in your heart, as we have learned from our King.
Now it is evident that a sin is caused by a defect in some circumstance: because the fact that a man departs from the order of reason is due to his not observing the due circumstances in his action. Wherefore it is evident that it is natural for a sin to be aggravated by reason of its circumstances. This happens in three ways. First, in so far as a circumstance draws a sin from one kind to another: thus fornication is the intercourse of a man with one who is not his wife: but if to this be added the circumstance that the latter is the wife of another, the sin is drawn to another kind of sin, viz. injustice, in so far as he usurps another’s property; and in this respect adultery is a more grievous sin than fornication. (St. Thomas Aquinas ST I-II 73:7)
As a Catholic, I accept that the Church’s doctrines on faith and morals, without question they are the truth. I may question them to explain the meaning, which I find in people like Thomas, and I learn more that way. but you are intending to suggest that we abandon the Church’s ruling on morality for your own understanding of the end justifying the means. That is not a possible understanding for a Catholic, no matter what arguments you might put out or how reasonable you may think they sound. It won’t happen. We are pledged with our lives to stand with Church doctrine (and we really do believe it, and many understand its implications).

John Martin

I’m simply pointing out where I think the construction is lacking. I’m not offering an alternative to Catholic morality. I figure if I can see it others must.

Although I find your interpretation of Aquinas interesting I.e. stealing sex, I think he sees the wife as property which was the thought at the time if the writing. Woman were property. I disagree with that proposition as woman as property absolutely.

Thanks for your time.

 

[John_Martin]

I’m simply pointing out where I think the construction is lacking. I’m not offering an alternative to Catholic morality. I figure if I can see it others must.

Although I find your interpretation of Aquinas interesting I.e. stealing sex, I think he sees the wife as property which was the thought at the time if the writing. Woman were property. I disagree with that proposition as woman as property absolutely.

Thanks for your time.

I believe I said they were stealing it from each other, not singling out one (female) as property; both are “property”; that is why you hear a husband and wife say to each other intuitively, “I am yours, and you are mine” - it is more than a quaint saying.

“…if I can see it others must.” you write: I am not concerned/worried what non-Catholics consider flaws in what was entrusted to us by God in our teachings. They cannot know what we know without participation in Christ, believing he will tell you only truth and all truth. You cannot understand Thomas unless you are his “obedient” student, unless you believe he will tell you only truth and truly explain what it means.

John Martin

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I believe I said they were stealing it from each other, not singling out one (female) as property; both are “property”; that is why you hear a husband and wife say to each other intuitively, “I am yours, and you are mine” - it is more than a quaint saying.

“…if I can see it others must.” you write: I am not concerned/worried what non-Catholics consider flaws in what was entrusted to us by God in our teachings. They cannot know what we know without participation in Christ, believing he will tell you only truth and all truth. You cannot understand Thomas unless you are his “obedient” student, unless you believe he will tell you only truth and truly explain what it means.

John Martin

I don’t own my wife nor does she own me. I find the concept of owning people repugnant. We are equals in our marriage. I pledged love and fidelity. I didn’t assume ownership.

As I said before the concept of stealing sex is interesting but the only case I can think of stealing sex is rape.

The assumption that things ought not be questioned because of the source seems anti intellectual and an example of blind faith. I’m not terribly interested in either.

 

[John_Martin]

I don’t own my wife nor does she own me. I find the concept of owning people repugnant. We are equals in our marriage. I pledged love and fidelity. I didn’t assume ownership.

As I said before the concept of stealing sex is interesting but the only case I can think of stealing sex is rape.

The assumption that things ought not be questioned because of the source seems anti intellectual and an example of blind faith. I’m not terribly interested in either.

Well, when you meet a source that is beyond question, that is when you will be interested. Until then you will be questioning with no one you trust having your answer.
I also doubt that you would say to your wife, “I am not yours and you are not mine”. The very fact that you say, “my wife” is the use of a “possessive”.

John Martin

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Well, when you meet a source that is beyond question, that is when you will be interested. Until then you will be questioning with no one you trust having your answer.
I also doubt that you would say to your wife, “I am not yours and you are not mine”. The very fact that you say, “my wife” is the use of a “possessive”.

John Martin

Things are owned, people are not. We don’t own God when we use the possessive “Our Father” do we?

If my intellect can see it, I will make the assumption that the one that gave me the intellect wanted me to see it.

 

[JulieSalveson]

Is it OK for me to steal food for my starving children but not OK for me to steal food for myself…if starving.

 

[Bookcat]

Is it OK for me to steal food for my starving children but not OK for me to steal food for myself…if starving.

It is not ok for you to steal food for your starving Children or for yourself. It is not ok to steal.

However – the taking of food to feed yourself or your children when starving can be simply not stealing.

Not Theft.

It can be a very different moral object due to the universal destination of goods. It is not that the end justifies the means --(such is not the case -the “end does not justify the means”) --it is that such is simply NOT theft. It is a different moral object.

Similar to it not being theft if I take say some cookies at my friends house when I am there for I presume his consent knowing my friend.

Catechism:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#2408

(that being said --of course if one ever finds oneself starving – seek out the multitude of sources to help…)

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It is not ok for you to steal food for your starving Children or for yourself. It is not ok to steal.

However – the taking of food to feed yourself or your children when starving can be simply not stealing.

Not Theft.

It can be a very different moral object due to the universal destination of goods. It is not that the end justifies the means --(such is not the case -the “end does not justify the means”) --it is that such is simply NOT theft. It is a different moral object.

Similar to it not being theft if I take say some cookies at my friends house when I am there for I presume his consent knowing my friend.

Catechism:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#2408

(that being said --of course if one ever finds oneself starving – seek out the multitude of sources to help…)

Parsed -

It’s ok to steal **if **you are going to die if you don’t.

Again, the end justifies the means.

 

[Bookcat]

Parsed -

It’s ok to steal **if **you are going to die if you don’t.

Again, the end justifies the means.

Nope. That would not be parsing but rather calling a chicken a duck.

Such is by definition is NOT theft.

Period.

Catechism:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.

The post there was directed to another person who asked a question. Providing what the Church and Catholic Moral Theology teaches regarding the question. I am not seeking to to continue the discussions that went on too long already…

Please set back and enjoy the ride. Hands inside the car at all times.

(and have of course a pleasant night)

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Nope. That would not be parsing but rather calling a chicken a duck.

Such is by definition is NOT theft.

Period.

Catechism:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.

I am not going round and round here – the post was directed to another person.

Please set back and enjoy the ride. Hands inside the car at all times.

I understand how it reads, I’m just stating what it says. It says it’s “no theft” if any reasonable person would understand that you did it to stay alive. Calling it “no theft” is clearly stating an exception to the rule.

usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner

If you are taking bread without the owners permission it’s theft BUT it’s ok because it’s better to steal than to die. Clear as day, right there.

 

[Bookcat]

I understand how it reads, I’m just stating what it says. It says it’s “no theft” if any reasonable person would understand that you did it to stay alive. Calling it “no theft” is clearly stating an exception to the rule.

If you are taking bread without the owners permission it’s theft BUT it’s ok because it’s better to steal than to die. Clear as day, right there.

No- please read it again. It is clarifying what IS theft and what IS NOT theft. Not saying it is ok to steal if such and such is the case. It is NOT stealing. Period.

If I say marital relations is not fornication – that means marital relations is NOT fornication. It is not that fornication is ok for husband and wife --the marital act is not fornication by definition – it is a very different moral reality than such.

Similar to if I say a duck is NOT a chicken it means that a duck is NOT a chicken.

Consent does not justify theft -it justifies use. It is NOT theft if consent can be presumed. My friend is not stealing from me if he eats my cookies knowing I will be fine with that. It is not that it is ok for me to steal them -it is NOT theft.

They are two different moral objects.

Have a good night.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No- please read it again. It is clarifying what IS theft and what IS NOT theft. Not saying it is ok to steal if such and such is the case. It is NOT stealing. Period.

If I say marital relations is not fornication – that means marital relations is NOT fornication. It is not that fornication is ok for husband and wife --the marital act is not fornication by definition – it is a very different moral reality than such.

Similar to if I say a duck is NOT a chicken it means that a duck is NOT a chicken.

Consent does not justify theft -it justifies use. It is NOT theft if consent can be presumed. My friend is not stealing from me if he eats my cookies knowing I will be fine with that. It is not that it is ok for me to steal them -it is NOT theft.

They are two different moral objects.

Have a good night.

No it’s making an exception. The example the poster asked about was stealing food. If you are taking it without the assumption of consent…it’s stealing. Pretty straight forward. It then adds

refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods

This isn’t consent. It means if any reasonable person would do the same, for them to refuse you is insane i.e you were starving… it’s ok, don’t beat yourself up about it. It’s an exception. It’s very clear.

I hope you also have a very pleasant evening.

 

[John_Martin]

Is it OK for me to steal food for my starving children but not OK for me to steal food for myself…if starving.

Hi Julie,
As a Catholic you know a number of things that non-Christians generally, but Catholics in particular, know.
You know your King and your God commanding you not to steal. But you also know that all that is in creation belongs to your God. You know that what we are given charge of in this life (our possessions and whatever wealth we might have) is from God for use in serving him and his will. And you know the law about loving your neighbor (your children, especially, as yourself.

Your other neighbor, the one from whom you are taking food for your children to survive, is also catholic. He knows what you know. Specifically about his wealth, he knows he is required to use it well, not squander it, but also not think it belongs to him as a natural right - he is the steward of what is God’s. So he takes precaution against thieves, who for greedy gain would try to steal or defraud him of his wealth or goods. That is part of his responsibility to God.

Now, you find yourself and your children starving, and what do you do? You are required by God, under penalty of mortal sin, to care for your children (and even for yourself). Your Catholic neighbor is on vacation, away from his home. you can find food nowhere, but you know it is there. What do you do? You go into his house, take food from the refrigerator and pantry (he is wealthy enough to have a pantry). And, you leave him a note, and sign it, asking for his mercy for your starving children, and telling him what you have done. Then you go home and feed your children and lastly eat what is remaining yourself. (By the way, you are not asking for “mercy” as for “forgiveness of sin”, but you are asking for “mercy” as “compassion for you and your children in need”; you are not confessing a sin to him, but confessing that you desperately need his help as your “patron” in this need.)

Your neighbor, when he returns, being a person who regards God’s Law because he is a citizen of God’s Kingdom, recognizes it is his responsibility to see to the well being of his neighbor with the wealth God gave him, so he comes to see you and asks if there is anything else you might need, and then helps you get these things and to get back on steady ground.

Now, not everyone recognizes God’s Law, such as Roscoe Turner, nor many people in a city, so the civil laws about theft may be different, are different, in the United States. And the culture of the United States has also eroded the self-perception of many Catholics, so they forget their true culture of the Kingdom of God. So, you may have been arrested and fined if you had found food from an Americanized Catholic or any other. But in our Catholic Culture, you fulfilled the Law, and your wealthy neighbor fulfilled the Law of God. You did nothing sinful, as your neighbor verifies by his behavior.

John Martin

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Hi Julie,
As a Catholic you know a number of things that non-Christians generally, but Catholics in particular, know.
You know your King and your God commanding you not to steal. But you also know that all that is in creation belongs to your God. You know that what we are given charge of in this life (our possessions and whatever wealth we might have) is from God for use in serving him and his will. And you know the law about loving your neighbor (your children, especially, as yourself.

Your other neighbor, the one from whom you are taking food for your children to survive, is also catholic. He knows what you know. Specifically about his wealth, he knows he is required to use it well, not squander it, but also not think it belongs to him as a natural right - he is the steward of what is God’s. So he takes precaution against thieves, who for greedy gain would try to steal or defraud him of his wealth or goods. That is part of his responsibility to God.

Now, you find yourself and your children starving, and what do you do? You are required by God, under penalty of mortal sin, to care for your children (and even for yourself). Your Catholic neighbor is on vacation, away from his home. you can find food nowhere, but you know it is there. What do you do? You go into his house, take food from the refrigerator and pantry (he is wealthy enough to have a pantry). And, you leave him a note, and sign it, asking for his mercy for your starving children, and telling him what you have done. Then you go home and feed your children and lastly eat what is remaining yourself. (By the way, you are not asking for “mercy” as for “forgiveness of sin”, but you are asking for “mercy” as “compassion for you and your children in need”; you are not confessing a sin to him, but confessing that you desperately need his help as your “patron” in this need.)

Your neighbor, when he returns, being a person who regards God’s Law because he is a citizen of God’s Kingdom, recognizes it is his responsibility to see to the well being of his neighbor with the wealth God gave him, so he comes to see you and asks if there is anything else you might need, and then helps you get these things and to get back on steady ground.

Now, not everyone recognizes God’s Law, such as Roscoe Turner, nor many people in a city, so the civil laws about theft may be different, are different, in the United States. And the culture of the United States has also eroded the self-perception of many Catholics, so they forget their true culture of the Kingdom of God. So, you may have been arrested and fined if you had found food from an Americanized Catholic or any other. But in our Catholic Culture, you fulfilled the Law, and your wealthy neighbor fulfilled the Law of God. You did nothing sinful, as your neighbor verifies by his behavior.

John Martin

Is the moral, if you are starving only steal from Catholics?

 

[John_Martin]

Is the moral, if you are starving only steal from Catholics?

No, Roscoe,

• Your “moral law” is coming from your reasoning, which is “king of your personal life”.
• Civil Moral Law comes from someone above you and outweighs your reason, it comes from the civil government to whom you are fully subject to obey its laws (as am I and as is Julie).
• But Julie and her wealthy Catholic neighbor have another King who is greater than the US Government, and that is their God, with his “Moral Law” and they are subject to Him (they are His Subjects) and obliged to obey His Laws, over the Civil Law, over their own reasoning about good and evil
• (funny, that is what Satan promised Adam and Eve, that they could decide in their own reasoning what is good and evil and not be subject to God but be like God).

The term “steal” is your personal law’s definition of what she did, and is likely also the US definition. But a higher lawgiver always outweighs and negates the statutes of a lower authority if they are in disagreement.

(as a note: It is a despicable, disgusting, and evil thing to entertain doing something evil and planning to use a good side-effect result as a justification for having participated in a sin. Only wicked people find ways to enjoy their sin but fool others into thinking it was justified because something “good” came from it.)

John Martin

 

[Bookcat]

No it’s making an exception. The example the poster asked about was stealing food. If you are taking it without the assumption of consent…it’s stealing.

This isn’t consent. It means if any reasonable person would do the same, for them to refuse you is insane i.e you were starving… it’s ok, don’t beat yourself up about it. It’s an exception. It’s very clear.

I hope you also have a very pleasant evening.

It is not an exception. Period. It is a different thing. It is NOT theft –by definition. It is by nature --by reality --not stealing. Just as my eating the food my mother bought gave when I was a child was not stealing. Or my taking the milk out of the fridge and using it when I was a child was not stealing. Not theft by definition.

As to the taking of food as described in the Catechism when a person is starving --when “refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods” – that is not discussing “consent” that was regarding another matter --but the reality that things such as food are destined for all --and that the person has a right basically to them – it is again NOT theft* by definition*. (see the definition above).

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It is not an exception. Period. It is a different thing. It is NOT theft –by definition. It is by nature --by reality --not stealing. Just as my eating the food my mother bought gave when I was a child was not stealing. Or my taking the milk out of the fridge and using it when I was a child was not stealing. Not theft by definition.

As to the taking of food as described in the Catechism when a person is starving --when “refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods” – that is not discussing “consent” that was regarding another matter --but the reality that things such as food are destined for all --and that the person has a right basically to them – it is again NOT theft* by definition*. (see the definition above).

It’s an end around the notion of consent. I understand the construction.

Most reasonable people would agree stealing food to prevent starvation is a valid reason to steal. So if we are going to make it ok, it must not be really stealing. It’s an exception to the rule. A valid one but an exception none the less.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No, Roscoe,

• Your “moral law” is coming from your reasoning, which is “king of your personal life”.
• Civil Moral Law comes from someone above you and outweighs your reason, it comes from the civil government to whom you are fully subject to obey its laws (as am I and as is Julie).
• But Julie and her wealthy Catholic neighbor have another King who is greater than the US Government, and that is their God, with his “Moral Law” and they are subject to Him (they are His Subjects) and obliged to obey His Laws, over the Civil Law, over their own reasoning about good and evil
• (funny, that is what Satan promised Adam and Eve, that they could decide in their own reasoning what is good and evil and not be subject to God but be like God).

The term “steal” is your personal law’s definition of what she did, and is likely also the US definition. But a higher lawgiver always outweighs and negates the statutes of a lower authority if they are in disagreement.

(as a note: It is a despicable, disgusting, and evil thing to entertain doing something evil and planning to use a good side-effect result as a justification for having participated in a sin. Only wicked people find ways to enjoy their sin but fool others into thinking it was justified because something “good” came from it.)

John Martin

You take great care to point out the victim of the hypothetical crime is also a Catholic. What if they are not?

It’s special pleading to say Catholic stealing in cases of starvation is unique and not stealing.

BTW I do think it is a valid reason to steal.