Does good intent ever justify evil results?

[MarieVeronica]

Dear CAF forum members…

I can’t even believe that I’m asking this question… because, personally… I believe the answer to be a resounding “NO”. :nope:

But there seems to be a lot of talk/confusion right now, about this question.

So… I’d like to know your opinions. Spiritually speaking, does our own, personal GOOD intent… EVER justify an evil result? (I’m speaking of intrinsic evils).

Should we not take into consider even the slightest evil… which might occur from the choices we make… EVEN if our own, personal “intent” is good?

Thank you for your consideration of the question. God bless.

 

[TAS2000]

Your question is worded a little vaguely. If we have good intentions and do somethign that we think is good but it ends up having a bad/evil result, there is really no way we could have known ahead of time, and thus there would be no problem. However, we can NEVER do an inherently evil action with a good intent. For an obvious example, say my intent is to help my niece who needs a liver transplant, so I go murder some guy to take his liver to help my niece. You also can’t do something that you know has a foreseaable evil result. Like, I’m a gun salemans and selling guns isnt’ evil, but selling a gun to a guy who is frothing at the mouth yelling how he is going to murder someone as soon as he gets the gun loaded…that’d be bad.

 

[baltobetsy]

A good intent never justifies an intrinsically evil action.

However, according to the principle of double effect, you may take an action with a good intent, which may have a bad effect as a secondary, unwanted result. The classic example of this is the surgical treatment of an ectopic, or tubal, pregnancy. The doctor may remove the diseased tube in order to save the woman’s life. Sadly, in this process, the baby dies. But the original intent is not to kill the baby, but to remove the diseased organ.

Another thing that sometimes causes confusion is the definition of theft. According to the CCC (#2408), the taking of another’s goods does not constitute theft if the owner’s consent may be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason. This is the case in the example of taking another’s property in urgent necessity.

And then there’s the question of lying vs. mental reservation, a problem about which there is still disagreement among moral theologians. How must you answer the Nazis when they pound on your door and ask about the Jews you are hiding in your attic?

So you see, there are things that, at first glance, appear black and white, but when one goes deeper, there are other things to consider when deciding whether or not an action is truly evil.

Betsy

 

[MarieVeronica]

Your question is worded a little vaguely. If we have good intentions and do somethign that we think is good but it ends up having a bad/evil result, there is really no way we could have known ahead of time, and thus there would be no problem. However, we can NEVER do an inherently evil action with a good intent. For an obvious example, say my intent is to help my niece who needs a liver transplant, so I go murder some guy to take his liver to help my niece. You also can’t do something that you know has a foreseaable evil result. Like, I’m a gun salemans and selling guns isnt’ evil, but selling a gun to a guy who is frothing at the mouth yelling how he is going to murder someone as soon as he gets the gun loaded…that’d be bad.

Sorry for the vagueness. I didn’t want to make this a “political” question, because it doesn’t belong in this forum.

But to be a bit more specific, I was alluding to the fact that some people are inclined to act in a certain way… to make everyone happy. To “cover all the bases”, if you will. But in the process, a grave evil could result.

Such as… an increase in abortions. And I don’t understand how anyone can justify that mind set.

I don’t know if I clarified my question any better. But I do thank you for your responses. God bless.

 

[Mark77]

The Church has always made it 100% clear, life is the primordial right and it trumps all other rights.

It does no good to have all sorts of well meaning people with helpful social programs if life is not protected.

If they support the “legal” murder of babies by their own mothers and fathers, all of the other “good” they promote is irrelevant.

Once the right to life is taken away, then any other horrible evil can be “justified” by the same well intentioned, yet immoral and illogical people.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
(Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners)

Mark

 

[thistle]

Dear CAF forum members…

I can’t even believe that I’m asking this question… because, personally… I believe the answer to be a resounding “NO”. :nope:

But there seems to be a lot of talk/confusion right now, about this question.

So… I’d like to know your opinions. Spiritually speaking, does our own, personal GOOD intent… EVER justify an evil result? (I’m speaking of intrinsic evils).

Should we not take into consider even the slightest evil… which might occur from the choices we make… EVEN if our own, personal “intent” is good?

Thank you for your consideration of the question. God bless.

The Church officially teaches that the end does not justify the means. You cannot commit an evil to achieve a good end.

 

[paperwight]

The Church officially teaches that the end does not justify the means. You cannot commit an evil to achieve a good end.

Is sticking a needle into a helpless baby an evil?
Most people would answer that it was.
Change that needle into an injection and it becomes acceptable. In other words, a good end comes from an evil means, the end justifies the means.

 

[thistle]

Is sticking a needle into a helpless baby an evil?
Most people would answer that it was.
Change that needle into an injection and it becomes acceptable. In other words, a good end comes from an evil means, the end justifies the means.

An injection is not an evil act.

We are talking about deliberately doing an evil act to achieve a good end. That is forbidden.

This is the official Church teaching which you MUST accept.

**CCC 1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it.**

 

[paperwight]

Another example. If a casualty in a road traffic accident is trapped, it can be necessary to amputate a limb. And there have been cases of moutaineers being trapped under a rock having to do the same thing.
It might have been that the limb itself could have been patched up i.e. it is not the case of a diseased organ being removed, but mutilation to save the life of the casualty who would otherwise die due to the vehicle catching fire.
Mutilation is ‘evil’, but in these cases, achieves a good end, that is, the survival of the person.

 

[JReducation]

We have to be careful with how the Church nuances the word “evil”. Evil is something that is materially wrong.

Amputating a limb is not materially wrong. The result may be mutilation, but the action is not mutilation, it is amputation. They are not the same thing. Mutilation is materially wrong, amputation is not.

The case the I am most familiar with is the patient who needs a hystorectamy. A historectamy is not sterilization. It is a surgical procedure that is materially good. The end is sterilization. But a hystorectomy is not sterlization, it is the removal of an organ that is damaged in some way and poses a danger to the patient.

Jesus cleared the temple of the money lenders, but he did not abuse them or hold resentment toward them. His action was not an action of hatred or violence. From a moral perspective his action is not an evil. To hurt, to abuse, to resent or to insult is materially sinful. To bring order into a situation where it is lacking is just that, nothing more.

In Catholic moral theology and mystical theology, nuance is very important.

Fraternally,

JR