Doing evil so good may come?

[JRKH]

BookCat - As always on these matters I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut…

Allow me to put this case to you…

The Nazi comes to the door and asks about Jews. You invite him in to look around. As he searches he is mumbling tha tif he finds any Jews - the camps will never see them - He’ll kill them and you on the spot. In his search he gets close to the hiding place at which point you grab a heavy object…say a length of pipe…striking and killing him…

Have you sinned?

Peace
James

 

[Bookcat]

BookCat - As always on these matters I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut…

Allow me to put this case to you…

The Nazi comes to the door and asks about Jews. You invite him in to look around. As he searches he is mumbling tha tif he finds any Jews - the camps will never see them - He’ll kill them and you on the spot. In his search he gets close to the hiding place at which point you grab a heavy object…say a length of pipe…striking and killing him…

Have you sinned?

Peace
James

Hum…such could be “legit self defense” perhaps.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#II

Tis difficult to say --for I am not there and not him. He may still walk right by the place and never find it…

There are hiding places and then there are* hiding places*…that are very very good…

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The mighty “re-definition” raises its ugly head again. Lying is intentionally and knowingly telling something that is not true.

In certain cases it can be justified. For example in the case of a Nazi inquiring about Jews. It is still a lie since you told something that is not true, but it is justifiable. Or when you lie to your children asserting that Santa Claus brings them christmas presents. Or when you tell your child that the needle will not hurt. All lies… but nothing wrong with them.

It is ridicuous and hypocritical to redefine something just to stay within the boundaries of a dogma.

Ridiculous would be demanding that an exterior definition (a definition that originates outside of a system) be applied to a system instead of the interior definition (the definition that originates from within a system) when the exterior definition has yet to be proven valid, has yet to be proven more valid than the interior definition, has yet to be proven more valid than the interior definition in regards to the system, and when the application of an exterior definition to a system as a valid approach has yet to be proven as well.

You are in effect trying to argue that the absolute value of 1 plus the absolute value of -1 does not equal 2 based on an unsupported claim that the mathematical definition of “absolute value” is incorrect because the mathematical definition is not the same as the non-mathematical definition of “absolute value” you wish to use.

 

[Farien]

The end does NOT “justify” the means. (See Catechism)

I agree with this, though it has nothing to do with the catechism (just like the golden rule has nothing to do with Jesus). It is not the “end” that justifies the “means”. It is that - based upon the circumstances - the “means” and the “end” - TOGETHER! - can form a justifyable sequence.

Exactly like intentionally killing someone in self-defense is a justifyable action. Or stealing a loaf of bread (theft!) is a justified action when someone is starving…

Telling the story of Santa Claus and the raindeers is telling a fairy tale - or is it propagating a lie?

 

[Farien]

Ridiculous would be demanding that an exterior definition (a definition that originates outside of a system) be applied to a system instead of the interior definition (the definition that originates from within a system)

Yes, when the correct definition is inconvenient (“lie” is telling something that is not true, ), it is useful to create a new “definition”. Remember the “Church Lady” from Saturday Night Live? “How conveeeeenient!”

 

[Bookcat]

I agree with this, though it has nothing to do with the catechism (just like the golden rule has nothing to do with Jesus). It is not the “end” that justifies the “means”. It is that - based upon the circumstances - the “means” and the “end” - TOGETHER! - can form a justifyable sequence.

Exactly like intentionally killing someone in self-defense is a justifyable action. Or stealing a loaf of bread (theft!) is a justified action when someone is starving…

Actually yes it has to do with the Catechism. And yes the Golden rule has everything to do with Jesus --both in his positive formulation of it (instead of negative) and the fact that he is the Logos --so it comes from him – no matter whose mouth utters it (in its negative form --yes it was uttered historically prior to the first century).

And NO the circumstances do NOT justify…

CCC:

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

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”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

---

Self defense is a DIFFERENT moral object than murder. It is not that the Circumstances make murder ok --but rather it is a different animal all together.

Just as a legit execution is not murder …

And taking Bread by a starving person -can simply be NOT theft – it is a different moral object all together – it is not that theft is ok when starving --it is that it is NOT theft by definition.

Just as if I know my friend is ok with me coming over to his house and helping myself to a coffee and a donut – it is not theft.

CCC:

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.191

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I

 

[JRKH]

Hum…such could be “legit self defense” perhaps.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#II

Tis difficult to say --for I am not there and not him. He may still walk right by the place and never find it…

There are hiding places and then there are* hiding places*…that are very very good…

I understand that hypotheticals are always limited…But I’m sure that you understand the point I am trying to make…

So - according to the Catechism…It is allowable in certain circumstances to kill in “legitimate self defense” (in this case the defense of others) and thereby not sin by committing an intrinsically evil act (killing). But according to the Catechism it is never allowable to lie in “legitimate self defense” or defense of others because lying is intrinsically evil and must always be condemned.

hhhmmmmmmm…

Peace
James

 

[fix]

I understand that hypotheticals are always limited…But I’m sure that you understand the point I am trying to make…

So - according to the Catechism…It is allowable in certain circumstances to kill in “legitimate self defense” (in this case the defense of others) and thereby not sin by committing an intrinsically evil act (killing). But according to the Catechism it is never allowable to lie in “legitimate self defense” or defense of others because lying is intrinsically evil and must always be condemned.

hhhmmmmmmm…

Peace
James

It is not licit to intend to kill some person. In self defense the intent is to stop the person from doing grave harm. If the person dies it is not due to the intent of the defender. In fact, the death of the offender is placed on his own conscience. He will have to answer to God for his life. He will have summoned himself into eternity by his own actions, not the defender’s action.

 

[Bookcat]

I understand that hypotheticals are always limited…But I’m sure that you understand the point I am trying to make…

So - according to the Catechism…It is allowable in certain circumstances to kill in “legitimate self defense” (in this case the defense of others) and thereby not sin by committing an intrinsically evil act (killing). But according to the Catechism it is never allowable to lie in “legitimate self defense” or defense of others because lying is intrinsically evil and must always be condemned.

hhhmmmmmmm…

Peace
James

See my PS from above:

PS: perhaps one could argue that there is a different “object” involved-- (hence not be a lie–similar to where taking say food by a starving person may be not “theft” by reason of the object…the definition of theft being something different and the universal destination of goods being in effect etc --see CCC 2408–such is a change in the object --it is a different thing than theft)…but again I leave that to the professional theologians to argue out and to the Magisterium to decide scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I and scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#II)

It is NOT that circumstances make murder ok -it is that self defense is a different moral object --it is NOT murder. Similar to --legit execution is not murder. Or my drinking my friends coffee is not Theft --etc.

As I noted in the PS – it could perhaps be argued that there is a different moral object – but such is left to the professional theologians and ultimately to the Magisterium…

It would NOT be that circumstances “justify” lying – if there was a different moral object involved – it would be that it was not “lying”.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Yes, when the correct definition is inconvenient (“lie” is telling something that is not true, ), it is useful to create a new “definition”. Remember the “Church Lady” from Saturday Night Live? “How conveeeeenient!”

Simply restating that your exterior definition is the correct definition without bothering to prove it as such and tacking on what I assume is an attempt at wit does not disprove the points I’ve raised.

 

[fix]

Simply restating that your exterior definition is the correct definition without bothering to prove it as such and tacking on what I assume is an attempt at wit does not disprove the points I’ve raised.

Yes, but that is the way moral relativism works. You feel it so it must be “true”.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Yes, but that is the way moral relativism works. You feel it so it must be “true”.

I think it’s more the lack of a proper education in the use of logic and reason than moral relativism.

 

[Walcot]

Ridiculous would be demanding that an exterior definition (a definition that originates outside of a system) be applied to a system instead of the interior definition (the definition that originates from within a system) when the exterior definition has yet to be proven valid, has yet to be proven more valid than the interior definition, has yet to be proven more valid than the interior definition in regards to the system, and when the application of an exterior definition to a system as a valid approach has yet to be proven as well.

You are in effect trying to argue that the absolute value of 1 plus the absolute value of -1 does not equal 2 based on an unsupported claim that the mathematical definition of “absolute value” is incorrect because the mathematical definition is not the same as the non-mathematical definition of “absolute value” you wish to use.

I’m sorry…am I the only one not to understand a word of this?! Is it possible to make your point in a clearer way? I’m completely lost here…

 

[JRKH]

See my PS from above:

PS: perhaps one could argue that there is a different “object” involved-- (hence not be a lie–similar to where taking say food by a starving person may be not “theft” by reason of the object…the definition of theft being something different and the universal destination of goods being in effect etc --see CCC 2408–such is a change in the object --it is a different thing than theft)…but again I leave that to the professional theologians to argue out and to the Magisterium to decide scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I and scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#II)

It is NOT that circumstances make murder ok -it is that self defense is a different moral object --it is NOT murder. Similar to --legit execution is not murder. Or my drinking my friends coffee is not Theft --etc.

As I noted in the PS – it could perhaps be argued that there is a different moral object – but such is left to the professional theologians and ultimately to the Magisterium…

It would NOT be that circumstances “justify” lying – if there was a different moral object involved – it would be that it was not “lying”.

And what does all of this boil down to???

“…Love your neighbor as yourself…upon (this) rests all of the Law and the Prophets.”

So the correct answer in a given situation is the one that best fulfills the Law of Love.
Now one can rightly say that we need to understand that the “Law of Love”, means. how Agape is applied in our lives and in our very beings…and the Catechism can and does certainly help in this regard.
But - as we notice in these types of discussions - the catechism deals largely with “normative” situations and cannot - indeed does not try to - answer every possible permutation. Thus we need to fall back on two things…
First and most important is the underlying Law of Love - the foundation for the commandments
Second - the interrelation of various aspects addressed in the Catechism.

The interrelation of things in the catechism shows us that taking another life is sometimes justified, even though killing is an intrinsic evil. We see that war may be justified when no other option is open to us. War - again - necessitates killing…committing an intrinsic evil…in order to protect ones self and others.

So - in the extra-ordinary circumstances that always come up in these threads - the idea of protecting another from one who clearly seeks to harm them…Why are we hesitant to invoke the “just war” idea that says, when no other option is open to us, we may act in defense of another?
Further - In reference to the defense of others, someone mentioned above that we should only use force sufficient to ward off the attack…Can one not consider that lying is doing just that? The lie wards off the attack without killing…

Just some random thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[Bookcat]

Faced with the Nazi at the door --yes it may happen that someone may via an erroneous conscience believe that lying in such a case is good is the “act of love” one is to do. But such would be an understandable but incorrect conclusion.

Lying is an evil (no matter how small)

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485** By its very nature, lying is to be condemned**…

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#III

It can be said that one can use certain licit “mental reservations”…or “discreet language”.

Now lets say one is in the very serious event of the Nazi at the door… and one can not find those discreet words…and others lives are at stake …and one thus ends up lying. What then? Well of course one should have found the other way. But in our weakness we sin …indeed we commit venial sins daily …hence they are called at times “daily sins” for which we pray daily “forgive us our trespasses”…and certainly ones culpability will likely be even further reduced by the event of the Nazi’s with the guns at your door…so ones venial sin will be reduced to an even smaller venial sin (if there is culpability at all)…which God in his knowing mercy can wipe away as one glances at the Crucifix with prayer after the Nazi’s leave…

God knows that in our seeking to live the varied virtues in our lives we will have venial sins in the process…that we being “saints” …being a new creation in Christ in the state of grace…in charity …living in Christ will still have “daily sins” to pray for. He loves us and continues to purify us with his love. (Not that such is an excuse to not seek to overcome our sins more and more in our lives …nor ought we seek or plan to lie in this case …but rather seek to find the right way)

Now all this does not make it “good” to lie. Or not a sin to lie (be it ever so slight). Nor does the ends in this circumstance “justify” the means of the lie (circumstances cannot justify -see CCC). It remains a lie. A sin. . But so too does the intemperance that one exhibited that morning at breakfast with too many eggs or the little anger one expressed at ones spouse that afternoon. If one falls here too…it will be another venial sin. Another weakness. Something that ought not have happened. One ought to have found a good way.

But it is somewhat understandable that it may happen in such events of Nazi’s at the door… even to Christians. To saints.

And there is really no point in trying to argue too much about such…

(PS: perhaps one could argue that there is a different “object” involved-- (hence not be a lie–similar to where taking say food by a starving person may be not “theft” by reason of the object…the definition of theft being something different and the universal destination of goods being in effect etc --see CCC 2408–such is a change in the object --it is a different thing than theft)…but again I leave that to the professional theologians to argue out and to the Magisterium to decide scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I and scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#II)

 

[Farien]

Actually yes it has to do with the Catechism. And yes the Golden rule has everything to do with Jesus --both in his positive formulation of it (instead of negative) and the fact that he is the Logos --so it comes from him – no matter whose mouth utters it (in its negative form --yes it was uttered historically prior to the first century).

Both forms predated Jesus, along with the concept of the end does not justify the means.

Self defense is a DIFFERENT moral object than murder. It is not that the Circumstances make murder ok --but rather it is a different animal all together.

I did NOT talk about murder (murder is a legal term). I talked about intentionally killing someone in self defense. Try again. Even in self-defense you have some freedom, maybe just a second or two to aim your gun and pull the trigger. The only sensible choice is to aim to kill, and no one will blame you for doing so - because it is a justified action.

And taking Bread by a starving person -can simply be NOT theft – it is a different moral object all together – it is not that theft is ok when starving --it is that it is NOT theft by definition.

By your unsupported re-definition. “Theft” is taking something that is legally the property of someone else, without the permission of the owner. One can assume that a decent person would give permission to take that bread. But it is not certain, and if some selfish person would not share that bread, it would remain “theft”, albeit justifyable, since life is more important than property.

Just as if I know my friend is ok with me coming over to his house and helping myself to a coffee and a donut – it is not theft.

Your friends have your implicit (or maybe even your explicit) permission.

 

[fix]

I think it’s more the lack of a proper education in the use of logic and reason than moral relativism.

I think it is both.

 

[Walcot]

And what does all of this boil down to???

“…Love your neighbor as yourself…upon (this) rests all of the Law and the Prophets.”

So the correct answer in a given situation is the one that best fulfills the Law of Love.
Now one can rightly say that we need to understand that the “Law of Love”, means. how Agape is applied in our lives and in our very beings…and the Catechism can and does certainly help in this regard.
But - as we notice in these types of discussions - the catechism deals largely with “normative” situations and cannot - indeed does not try to - answer every possible permutation. Thus we need to fall back on two things…
First and most important is the underlying Law of Love - the foundation for the commandments
Second - the interrelation of various aspects addressed in the Catechism.

The interrelation of things in the catechism shows us that taking another life is sometimes justified, even though killing is an intrinsic evil. We see that war may be justified when no other option is open to us. War - again - necessitates killing…committing an intrinsic evil…in order to protect ones self and others.

So - in the extra-ordinary circumstances that always come up in these threads - the idea of protecting another from one who clearly seeks to harm them…Why are we hesitant to invoke the “just war” idea that says, when no other option is open to us, we may act in defense of another?
Further - In reference to the defense of others, someone mentioned above that we should only use force sufficient to ward off the attack…Can one not consider that lying is doing just that? The lie wards off the attack without killing…

Just some random thoughts…

Peace
James

Summed up brilliantly if I may say so!
What concerns me is that the death penalty was mentioned as being a justified killing…self defense yes, but the cold blooded legal taking of a life??? What happened to that sturdy defense of human life we hear in the abortion debate? I find it disturbing…the splitting of hairs over ‘lies’ being ‘sins’ in practically the same breath as the casual mention of the legitimacy of ending a fellow human’s life by execution!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I’m sorry…am I the only one not to understand a word of this?! Is it possible to make your point in a clearer way? I’m completely lost here…

I’ll try.

Let’s assume the following-
Mathematical definition of “absolute value” = the distance of a number from 0
Economic definition of “absolute value” = the + or - distance of a number from 1

The poster is arguing in a discussion about mathematics that the mathematical equation I1I + I-1I = 2 is false because the economic definition of “absolute value” results in the equation being -2 [0 {the distance of 1 from 1 is 0} + -2 {the +/- distance of -1 from 1 is -2} = -2]. He is trying to disprove mathematics (Catholic morality) and the mathematical equation is false by using an exterior definition (the economic definition; the non-Catholic definition) of “absolute value” (moral/immoral) instead of the interior definition (the mathematical definition; the Catholic definition).

Did that help or did it just make it “clear as mud?”

 

[Bookcat]

Both forms predated Jesus, along with the concept of the end does not justify the means.

I did NOT talk about murder (murder is a legal term). I talked about intentionally killing someone in self defense. Try again. Even in self-defense you have some freedom, maybe just a second or two to aim your gun and pull the trigger. The only sensible choice is to aim to kill, and no one will blame you for doing so - because it is a justified action.

By your unsupported re-definition. “Theft” is taking something that is legally the property of someone else, without the permission of the owner. One can assume that a decent person would give permission to take that bread. But it is not certain, and if some selfish person would not share that bread, it would remain “theft”, albeit justifyable, since life is more important than property.

Your friends have your implicit (or maybe even your explicit) permission.

Jesus is the Logos – and in any case – he is before and at the origin of the golden rule (I am not conceding that the positive formulation was stated prior)

I was not nor is the Catechism – discussing the “legal definition” but rather – the Theological definitions.

As is fitting for a Catholic Forum of Moral Theology.

Nor am I giving “re-definitions” --again we are discussing Catholic Moral Theology so I fittingly give the above from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

No need to “try again” I have already explained above (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10189959&postcount=26 and elsewhere)