Ends not justifying means

[yesukristus]

Just wondering what the CCC says about ends not justifying means. Like if the only way you can get information that would directly save lives is to torture someone (and he would not give up the info any other way), what does the CCC says about torturing him? Not torturing him?

 

[Moscati]

From the trusty Catechism:

---

2297 . . . Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity . . .

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

---

I think the situation you’re describing would “use physical violence to extract confession”, which is prohibited.

 

[Philthy]

Just wondering what the CCC says about ends not justifying means. Like if the only way you can get information that would directly save lives is to torture someone (and he would not give up the info any other way), what does the CCC says about torturing him? Not torturing him?

You have presented an impossible situation: that you KNOW that the only way you could get information is to torture someone. You can never really know that, and so your hypothetical situation is unrealistic.
I do believe, however, that in certain circumstances when the likely death of an expected mother can be prevented through a procedure that puts her unborn child at risk that it is moral to choose to perform the procedure for the end of saving the mother’s life while the possibility of the child being harmed is viewed as a possible, but not necessary unintended consequence.

Blessings!

 

[prodigalson12]

I wouldn’t say it’s ever a case of one flat rule across the board. Take into context of how God punishes the Jews for turning away from him, this in turn causes them to repent. The means, be it, harsh in their eyes at the time, brings about change, and after they repent, living their lives now in his graces being far better then living without, without his intervention.

My own life, things happened for a reason, at the time, I consider it harsh treatment, but looking back, realizing it’s necessary for spiritual growth. Yes, I’ll complain during the times of tribulation, but afterwords, realize it’s part of his plan and being brought closer to him, the pain and suffering was worth it.

In the case of torture, that’s unrealistic, we have other means to gain information without harming the individual luckily, and what ever information you typically derrive from the use of torture is not necessarily the truth, it’s word play to stop the suffering at the moment.

 

[thistle]

Just wondering what the CCC says about ends not justifying means. Like if the only way you can get information that would directly save lives is to torture someone (and he would not give up the info any other way), what does the CCC says about torturing him? Not torturing him?

The Church teaching is very clear that the end does NOT justify the means. You cannot do evil even if the intent is to achieve good.

 

[yesukristus]

Let’s give a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say a group of people have kidnapped my wife and kids and demanded that I do something (let’s make it unthinkable) within so many hours or they will start sending my family back bit by bit. I have in my front of me one of the member of that group who knows where they are but he won’t tell. Nothing but torture will make him tell. What should I do under such circumstances, especially since there’s a time limit to the whole thing?

 

[prodigalson12]

Let’s give a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say a group of people have kidnapped my wife and kids and demanded that I do something (let’s make it unthinkable) within so many hours or they will start sending my family back bit by bit. I have in my front of me one of the member of that group who knows where they are but he won’t tell. Nothing but torture will make him tell. What should I do under such circumstances, especially since there’s a time limit to the whole thing?

The moral thing as a human would be not to use evil to achieve a good result, which is the bottom line. A realistic scenereo for most of us would be to do what ever it takes regardless of the moral implications in order to save your family.

The debate then comes down to who is really honest with themselves, and who thinks they could pass that test without causing harm. The latter, in most cases with the responses, the people that answer it in that matter are either very stubborn and unyielding, or they are fooling themselves into thinking they are stronger then they actually are.

 

[thistle]

Let’s give a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say a group of people have kidnapped my wife and kids and demanded that I do something (let’s make it unthinkable) within so many hours or they will start sending my family back bit by bit. I have in my front of me one of the member of that group who knows where they are but he won’t tell. Nothing but torture will make him tell. What should I do under such circumstances, especially since there’s a time limit to the whole thing?

If you torture him you are committing a mortal sin.

Also you are making a big assumption. First that he will talk under torture and second that if he does he will tell the truth.
It is a proven fact that the truth is often not told under torture.

 

[yesukristus]

If you torture him you are committing a mortal sin.

Also you are making a big assumption. First that he will talk under torture and second that if he does he will tell the truth.
It is a proven fact that the truth is often not told under torture.

Let’s say for the sake of the argument that 1) he WILL talk under torture and 2) he will be truthful under torture. And about the mortal sin part that’s exactly my question: would it be like a mortal sin in the outlined circumstances?

 

[thistle]

Let’s say for the sake of the argument that 1) he WILL talk under torture and 2) he will be truthful under torture. And about the mortal sin part that’s exactly my question: would it be like a mortal sin in the outlined circumstances?

Yes. Its ALWAYS a mortal sin to torture someone.

The Church teaching:

CCC 1789 **Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it**;
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

 

[NHInsider]

Let’s say for the sake of the argument that 1) he WILL talk under torture and 2) he will be truthful under torture. And about the mortal sin part that’s exactly my question: would it be like a mortal sin in the outlined circumstances?

Yes it would be. But your “for the sake of argument” points are too problematic to be given as assumptions. All the evidence is that torture rarely yields useful information. Life is not a made-for-tv movie.

 

[Bookcat]

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.

 

[Bookcat]

Just wondering what the CCC says about ends not justifying means. Like if the only way you can get information that would directly save lives is to torture someone (and he would not give up the info any other way), what does the CCC says about torturing him? Not torturing him?

of course one has to determine if the action is actually torture…

 

[Larry1700]

From the trusty Catechism:

---

2297 . . . Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity . . .

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

Waterboarding, which is the most frequently cited as being torture, neither does physical nor moral violence to the person, nor does it shed blood. Our own soldiers undergo waterboarding, and are fine after it’s over.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Let’s give a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say a group of people have kidnapped my wife and kids and demanded that I do something (let’s make it unthinkable) within so many hours or they will start sending my family back bit by bit. I have in my front of me one of the member of that group who knows where they are but he won’t tell. Nothing but torture will make him tell. What should I do under such circumstances, especially since there’s a time limit to the whole thing?

What should you do… Can only be answered by you! No matter what choice you make, Torture will always be a mortal sin. If you were to choose torture, then would be the one culpable for this sin. Which leaves you with the dilema and no one else.

Now that you know it would be a sin to torture this man no matter what the circumstances, would “YOU” carry out the torture.

Peace!

 

[jerryb1020]

Would someone please define ‘torture’. My grandson thinks that having to eat broccoli is torture.

 

[thistle]

Waterboarding, which is the most frequently cited as being torture, neither does physical nor moral violence to the person, nor does it shed blood. Our own soldiers undergo waterboarding, and are fine after it’s over.

The UN definition of torture:

The basic definition of torture is that contained in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

“… ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

What is waterboarding? Waterboarding is a form of torture that involves the use of water to coerce a prisoner or detainee into a confession. The victim is tied to an inclined board that positions the head lower than the feet. A piece of cloth is then secured over the victim’s face. Water is poured over the cloth, and the victim begins to experience difficulty breathing. Waterboarding proves particularly effective in that fear of asphyxiation often leads the victim to panic and beg for the torture to cease.

Anyone who even has half a brain can see that waterboarding IS a form of torture.

 

[Limbo]

I wouldn’t say it’s ever a case of one flat rule across the board. Take into context of how God punishes the Jews for turning away from him, this in turn causes them to repent. The means, be it, harsh in their eyes at the time, brings about change, and after they repent, living their lives now in his graces being far better then living without, without his intervention.

My own life, things happened for a reason, at the time, I consider it harsh treatment, but looking back, realizing it’s necessary for spiritual growth. Yes, I’ll complain during the times of tribulation, but afterwords, realize it’s part of his plan and being brought closer to him, the pain and suffering was worth it.

In the case of torture, that’s unrealistic, we have other means to gain information without harming the individual luckily, and what ever information you typically derrive from the use of torture is not necessarily the truth, it’s word play to stop the suffering at the moment.

I don’t think you are in a position to decide to interpret how God “punishes” ANYONE, in particular “the Jews,” unless you have been given a divine revelation. (Most of us have not). Straight talk, but not offensively intended: I believe you need to think carefully about humility, religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

 

[Larry1700]

The UN definition of torture:

The basic definition of torture is that contained in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

“… ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

What is waterboarding? Waterboarding is a form of torture that involves the use of water to coerce a prisoner or detainee into a confession. The victim is tied to an inclined board that positions the head lower than the feet. A piece of cloth is then secured over the victim’s face. Water is poured over the cloth, and the victim begins to experience difficulty breathing. Waterboarding proves particularly effective in that fear of asphyxiation often leads the victim to panic and beg for the torture to cease.

Anyone who even has half a brain can see that waterboarding IS a form of torture.

Someone with **half **a brain might think waterboarding is torture. However, if they use their **entire **brain (i.e., use logical reasoning, instead of just emotion), they will understand that that the UN is not the final arbiter regarding moralilty, because they realize that the UN also believes abortion is an acceptable form of population control.

 

[Richardprins]

What about the army? They definitely do things (killing) that would normally be a grave sin, but we have the just war doctrine right?
How does that work?