A
AFerri48
Guest
Example: Killing one innocent person to save the entire world.
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
B
Bookcat
Guest
No the ends do not justify the means.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Ok, in my understanding, if you have a good end, but, try to arrive at that good end through an immoral means then it is not justified.
However, in certain cases it may be permitted to allow a lesser evil to occur in order to keep an even greater evil from occurring. For example, in the case of a suicidal terrorist hijacking a passenger airline to crash into a building. That it would be morally permitted to shoot down the airplane before it hits the building in order to save the people in the building. Even though this would indirectly cause the death of innocent people on the plane. The difference though is that you would not require or desire the death of these innocent people in order to save the people in the building. So they were not a means to an end. But are unfortunate and undesired collateral damage.
In the case of abortion the death of the child is desired and required in order to achieve whatever the end, good or bad, that the abortionist is trying to achieve. Therefore, it can not be justified.
Jesus was one innocent person who was put to death, and whose death saves the world. But, the people who put him to death had their own selfish motives. And Jesus willingly laid down his life for others. He could have called 10000 angels. But he was obedient to the one who holds life and death in his hands. Someone who willingly gives up their life for others is not immoral but shows the highest standards of morality.
“He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,” (John 11:51)
However, in certain cases it may be permitted to allow a lesser evil to occur in order to keep an even greater evil from occurring. For example, in the case of a suicidal terrorist hijacking a passenger airline to crash into a building. That it would be morally permitted to shoot down the airplane before it hits the building in order to save the people in the building. Even though this would indirectly cause the death of innocent people on the plane. The difference though is that you would not require or desire the death of these innocent people in order to save the people in the building. So they were not a means to an end. But are unfortunate and undesired collateral damage.
In the case of abortion the death of the child is desired and required in order to achieve whatever the end, good or bad, that the abortionist is trying to achieve. Therefore, it can not be justified.
Jesus was one innocent person who was put to death, and whose death saves the world. But, the people who put him to death had their own selfish motives. And Jesus willingly laid down his life for others. He could have called 10000 angels. But he was obedient to the one who holds life and death in his hands. Someone who willingly gives up their life for others is not immoral but shows the highest standards of morality.
“He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,” (John 11:51)
B
Bookcat
Guest
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
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#II
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#II
T
Tim_D
Guest
Excellent post. Sometimes we must let the greater good prevail. Those are not my words, they are the words of Brother JR who was a Franciscan theologian who posted here.
P
phil_at_dayboro
Guest
I think history is filled with such scenarios ,
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, the ends in view always justify the the morally neutral human act. If the ends in view include good and evil effects then the good effects must be proportionate to the evil. The good ends must be intended and may not proceed from the evil ends.
However, you offer as an example the only exception – an intrinsically evil act which is never justified.
B
Bookcat
Guest
O
o_mlly
Guest
The ends do not justify an ***evil ***means.
- Status