Do Ends justify the means ever?

[DonCampbell]

Hypothetical:

A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb. It will go off in 1 hour, killing 10 million innocent people in the NYC area. The terrorist has been captured, but is impervious to personal torture. He cannot, however, bear to see his 5 year old innocent daughter (who is also in custody) tortured. If you torture her (say, by sawing off a finger) then he will give up the location of the bomb, thereby allowing the authorities to defuse it, saving 10 million innocent people from anihilation. Would not the end (saving 10 million innocent lives) be justified by the means (torturing one innocent child in a way that does not threaten her life)?

 

[Gorgias]

Would not the end (saving 10 million innocent lives) be justified by the means (torturing one innocent child in a way that does not threaten her life)?

It would seem that the answer is ‘no’. However, what if the terrorist and his daughter were taken for questioning to a location near NYC but outside the blast radius (thus guaranteeing that a detonation will lead to his daughter’s suffering but not immediate death)…?

 

[Ron_Conte]

The end never justifies the means. In other words, you must choose a good means to a good end.

The teaching on war in the CCC is referring to an evaluation of the consequences of an act; the consequences fall into the font of morality called circumstances. For the circumstances of an act to be moral, the reasonably anticipated bad consequences must not outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences. This type of judgment of the moral weight of the good and bad consequences is complex in the case of war.

In moral theology, the term evil is used in two ways:

1. moral evil – it is never justifiable to choose immorality in the means or the end.

A morally good end does not justify committing a sin as the means.

1. “physical” evil – which includes various types of harm, suffering, and disorder, apart from moral evil.

Physical evil can be tolerated in the means to a good end. For example, a physician may intentionally amputate a limb to save a life. The means is physical evil, but not moral evil. The end of saving a life morally outweighs the harm done in the means, so the act is moral.

Similarly, in war, a physical evil can be tolerated in the means to the good end of defending the nation.

 

[JamesATyler]

It just sounds like to me that sometime you have to do an evil thing (like lie) to do the right thing. But why is deception intrinsically evil I just don’t understand. It seems to me that deception is not always evil. If someone comes into my house to kill me and I hide under the bed, am I not trying to deceive him? Yes!

 

[Gorgias]

It just sounds like to me that sometime you have to do an evil thing (like lie) to do the right thing.

The Catechism explains that sometimes, people don’t have the right to the truth (for a variety of reasons: the “Nazi at the door” example is the one most frequently cited). However, this doesn’t explicitly mean that lying is tolerated; rather, one may see his obligation as one that requires him to obscure the truth, rather than to lie.

But why is deception intrinsically evil I just don’t understand. It seems to me that deception is not always evil. If someone comes into my house to kill me and I hide under the bed, am I not trying to deceive him? Yes!

Again, the person who wants to kill you has no right to the ‘truth’ of your location; you’re not deceiving him… just obscuring that truth from him!

 

[Fulcrum]

In my humble opinion, not being a professional theologian nor a professional philosopher, the matter is easily and simply resolved. An act of war is not an act of goodness. It may, however, be an act of necessity. What exactly constitutes an act of necessity, for example, is broad. So what I am saying is do not conflate the concepts of necessity and goodness. Usage in a sentence: If Christianity did not make war with the Muslims, we would all be Muslim. Certain things had to be done out of necessity. Post the Second Coming we will no longer need concern ourselves with necessity. At the present time, this is not Paradise.

 

[bilop]

The end never justifies the means. In other words, you must choose a good means to a good end.

The teaching on war in the CCC is referring to an evaluation of the consequences of an act; the consequences fall into the font of morality called circumstances. For the circumstances of an act to be moral, the reasonably anticipated bad consequences must not outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences. This type of judgment of the moral weight of the good and bad consequences is complex in the case of war.

In moral theology, the term evil is used in two ways:

1. moral evil – it is never justifiable to choose immorality in the means or the end.

A morally good end does not justify committing a sin as the means.

1. “physical” evil – which includes various types of harm, suffering, and disorder, apart from moral evil.

Physical evil can be tolerated in the means to a good end. For example, a physician may intentionally amputate a limb to save a life. The means is physical evil, but not moral evil. The end of saving a life morally outweighs the harm done in the means, so the act is moral.

Similarly, in war, a physical evil can be tolerated in the means to the good end of defending the nation.

One quibble. The means need not be good, in and of itself, it just needs not to be evil. Using a morally neutral means to a good end is perfectly acceptable.

You can see this in the case of killing in self-defense (or in defense of another). It someone is trying to kill you, and you kill them, the killing is not “good” in and of itself, but it’s not intrinscially evil. So, since your end is good (preservation of your life) and your intent is to stop the attack, the action is good.

God Bless

 

[Robert_Sock]

God uses ‘evil’ so that good may come about. The story of Job is but one example.

 

[hazcompat]

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#1759

peace