Ends Not Justifying the Means

[PeteZaHut]

I am in a college philosophy class on ethics. I can foresee the situation coming up where I will have to defend how the ends do not justify the means. I know someone is going to ask what if you have to do something wrong to save someone’s life. How to I respond to that?

 

[shondrea]

I struggle with this a lot. I know that one cannot commit sin for a “good cause”, but I think sometimes we can be stuck between a rock and a hard place, and have to choose which is the lesser of two evils. I mean, if a man had a gun to my grandmothers head and I knew a lie would save her, but the truth would kill her…I know, it’s an unplausible and out there scenario, but I’d consider the lie the lesser of two evils.

However, generally, you’re not talking about such extremes. In everyday life, we have much less grave situations. Tell your friend the truth or hurt her feelings? How to explain things to small children?

 

[flyingfish]

It seems to me that there is something misleading about the statement “the ends do not justify the means”, it almost seems like a cheap trick meant to distract people from the real issues.

There are no “means”, everything can be seen as an “end”. Every time people talk about the ends not justifying the means, they are using examples of the “means” having negative consequences (i.e. ends).

This quote distracts people from the real issues, namely the consequences of all actions (including “means”). Everything has a consequence, and you have to weigh the results when it comes to making a decision.

It makes about as much sense to talk about the ends justifying the means as it makes sense to talk about the means justifying the ends

 

[Rascalking]

My response-(jeez, this will not win me friends) is that sometimes, they do. Lie to save grandma, break the law to achieve a more noble end, etc. The hardest thing in this life is to take a deep breath, realize that sometimes life, liberty and ethics do insist that we do a minor wrong to prevent a deeper evil.

Yes, people will scream and jump up and down, and I say-let them. When we die, and God says to us, “You didn’t lie, and 30 people died” and to me, “You lied, and saved 30 lives”, then, we’ll know whats right.

I get it-slippery slope, all that stuff. But don’t lose reality and common sense.

 

[ccolley]

I am in a college philosophy class on ethics. I can foresee the situation coming up where I will have to defend how the ends do not justify the means. I know someone is going to ask what if you have to do something wrong to save someone’s life. How to I respond to that?

There is an excellent book called Beginning Apologetics Book # 5. How to answer Tough Moral questions. By Fr. Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham. You can order it online…and I think it may be available through Catholic Answers.
Basically the logic goes…
“This is the idea that it is alright to do an evil act in order to attain a desired good: For Example: we can kill an unborn baby to save the life of the Mother. This contradicts Romans 3:8 which says we cannot do evil to attain good.”
“Hitler and Stalin each killed millions of innocent people to advance ends that THEY considered “good”(political stability, economic prosperity). They were merely following this principle to its logical conclusion…If the ends truly justifies the means then Hitler and Stalin weren’t guilty of immoral acts.”(page 11 of Beginning Apologetics Book # 5). You will have to order the book to get the rest of the argument…but that is basically how it goes. Another good resource is John Martignoni’s talk entitled…“Was Hitler Right? or Why Atheists have no rights” it can be downloaded for free from his website www.biblechristiansociety.com …it is an exceptionally strong argument against that idea.
CC
[SIGN]If you are Catholic, thank a priest! [/SIGN]

 

[hellopeople]

I am in a college philosophy class on ethics. I can foresee the situation coming up where I will have to defend how the ends do not justify the means. I know someone is going to ask what if you have to do something wrong to save someone’s life. How to I respond to that?

Well there are two reasonably valid philosophical moral systems at odds with each other (there are a lot more, but these are the basic ones)…kantian ethics and utlitarianism…Kant’s says that ends do not justify means…utilitarianism says you should do what will cause the greater good (even if you have to do something that seems wrong to do it). So there is a huge debate in philosophy for which one is correct and you don’t have to be catholic to go along with kantian ethics. If I were you I would read some kant.

 

[hellopeople]

There is an excellent book called Beginning Apologetics Book # 5. How to answer Tough Moral questions. By Fr. Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham. You can order it online…and I think it may be available through Catholic Answers.
Basically the logic goes…
“This is the idea that it is alright to do an evil act in order to attain a desired good: For Example: we can kill an unborn baby to save the life of the Mother. This contradicts Romans 3:8 which says we cannot do evil to attain good.”
"Hitler and Stalin each killed millions of innocent people to advance ends that THEY considered “good”(political stability, economic prosperity). They were merely following this principle to its logical conclusion…If the ends truly justifies the means then Hitler and Stalin weren’t guilty of immoral acts."(page 11 of Beginning Apologetics Book # 5). You will have to order the book to get the rest of the argument…but that is basically how it goes. Another good resource is John Martignoni’s talk entitled…“Was Hitler Right? or Why Atheists have no rights” it can be downloaded for free from his website www.biblechristiansociety.com …it is an exceptionally strong argument against that idea.
CC
[SIGN]If you are Catholic, thank a priest! [/SIGN]

I see what you are saying here and I believe that it is a lot easier to exploit utilitarianism (using a means for an end) to convince people you are doing good when you are doing evil. I really think that you have to have a level head and a good heart to use this moral system correctly, because otherwise, as you stated, it can be used to kill many innocent people in the name of a good end. Personally, for me though, I know what is right and what is wrong and what kind of things I can do that are for the greater good. Am I going to kill someone for the greater good??..not unless it was some sort of EXTREME case (so basically no). Would I lie to my wife about if she looks fat in a dress she is wearing? Absolutely! What is the point of telling her the truth about something like that when you know all it will do is get her upset.

 

[flyingfish]

Well there are two reasonably valid philosophical moral systems at odds with each other (there are a lot more, but these are the basic ones)…kantian ethics and utlitarianism…Kant’s says that ends do not justify means…utilitarianism says you should do what will cause the greater good (even if you have to do something that seems wrong to do it). So there is a huge debate in philosophy for which one is correct and you don’t have to be catholic to go along with kantian ethics. If I were you I would read some kant.

Doesn’t it seem to you though that every time someone talks about the ends not justifying the means they are arguing from some form of consequentialism.

For example, earlier example in this very thread talks about Hitler and Stalin killing millions to achieve something they thought was good is being used as an argument. The person giving this example is saying how terrible it was because of the consequences (specifically all the dead people).

You never see the “ends do not justify the means” crowd arguing that it was evil to lie to the Nazis to save Jews, and that people should have honestly answered the question of where the Jews were hiding even if it meant they would die.

I can’t say I’ve met anyone in my life who wasn’t a consequentialist.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

My response-(jeez, this will not win me friends) is that sometimes, they do. Lie to save grandma, break the law to achieve a more noble end, etc. The hardest thing in this life is to take a deep breath, realize that sometimes life, liberty and ethics do insist that we do a minor wrong to prevent a deeper evil.

Yes, people will scream and jump up and down, and I say-let them. When we die, and God says to us, “You didn’t lie, and 30 people died” and to me, “You lied, and saved 30 lives”, then, we’ll know whats right.

I get it-slippery slope, all that stuff. But don’t lose reality and common sense.

I agree with you completely. The whole point of Jesus “freeing us from the law” is that he freed us from the laws that confine us. He gave us his love for others and the Holy Spirit to direct each of our actions. If we are prayerfull seeking the will of God, then we will know if “ends justify the means” so to speak. It’s the main point Jesus railed on the pharasees on. In their obsession to follow every minute detail of the law, they allowed people around them to come to immense harm and suffering. Lepers not allowed to worship as they were “unclean,” allowing the stavation of the poor. Just look at the parabale of the Good Samaritin. Things of that nature. They followed the law, but had no love. I’d say if someone stuck to every letter of the law, and in so doing ignored those times where they could save peoples’ lives, God will call judgement down on that.

This is why Jesus, NT writers, saints, and others have driven home the point that we are free from the law. They have driven home the point that we have been given the gift of a close relationship to God through Christ, and the Holy Spirit is there as well as the church to guide us. We are told the law, and we are to use our relationship with Christ, kept in check by the law, to carry out God’s will. Think of all those in scripture who broke the commands and the law to serve God’s will. Does this mean that we can just break whatever law we want? No. This is why we have the church to tell us where the lines are, but it is left up to us. Are you really going to tell the truth and have someone killed, or mislead and save a life from injustice and hatred? What do you think Christ would want you to do? The law is there for our edification, not to beat other people with. The point is love, not rules. I think we as Catholics especially miss that mark more often than we realize or care to admit. In choosing to try to follow every jot and tittle, we fail to see the big picture and love. In so doing, we “strain a gnat (such as lying), and swallow a camel (such as allowing injustice, or through inaction allow another to die).”

 

[Ron_Conte]

I know that there are many non-Catholic members of this group, but I’m Catholic.
I believe what the Church teaches, and the Church definitively teaches
that the end does not justify the means,
and that certain kinds of acts are always immoral.
Always immoral.

It is not an open question for Catholics.
The definitive teaching of the Church on this point is required belief.
We are not free to believe that the end justifies the means.
We are not free to believe that nothing is always immoral.

Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor:

The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.

1. In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”.134

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.

 

[Rascalking]

I know that there are many non-Catholic members of this group, but I’m Catholic.
I believe what the Church teaches, and the Church definitively teaches
that the end does not justify the means,
and that certain kinds of acts are always immoral.
Always immoral.

.

Ok. If certain kind of acts are always immoral, (and I don’t really disagree with that) let’s be clear than-What I’m getting from you is that in some cases human life is less important than being moral.

No, I’m not putting words in your mouth-I’m just reading your post and applying it to the “Nazi-front door hiding Jews” situation we’ve been talking about.

 

[Cristian_B]

So is what Rahab did correct or incorrect? (The story in Joshua chapter 2) If lying to save someone is good, then I suppose you can also have other gods, be an idolater, take his name in vain, brake His Holy Day, disrespect your parents, covet and other things to save someone’s life/lives? I hope not. So is all this correct or incorrect? I assume that if a Jewish person comes at you and hides in your house and his persecutors ask you about him, lying to save his life would be okay. But what if he asks you to have other gods to save his life? What if he asks you to commit adultery to save his life? Is it then morally acceptable or not?

 

[Rascalking]

What if he asks you to commit adultery to save his life? Is it then morally acceptable or not?

Someone I know told me a parable once to make me think. Suppose a mom and her daughter where kidnapped. The mom initates sexual intercourse to let her daughter escape. The daughter escapes. The mom is killed. The daughter lives.

People who claim there is never a moral excuse to do “X” or “Y” need to be honest and say that human life isn’t that big of a deal in those cases.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Ron - quoting Church dogma is not going to help you one jot in a philosophy class.
The deontological approach cannot be proven formally. It is a position which can be argued, but not proven.

 

[ccolley]

I see what you are saying here and I believe that it is a lot easier to exploit utilitarianism (using a means for an end) to convince people you are doing good when you are doing evil. I really think that you have to have a level head and a good heart to use this moral system correctly, because otherwise, as you stated, it can be used to kill many innocent people in the name of a good end. Personally, for me though, I know what is right and what is wrong and what kind of things I can do that are for the greater good. Am I going to kill someone for the greater good??..not unless it was some sort of EXTREME case (so basically no). Would I lie to my wife about if she looks fat in a dress she is wearing? Absolutely! What is the point of telling her the truth about something like that when you know all it will do is get her upset.

The truth is that you need more than a level head and good heart, you also need a “well-formed” conscience. Moral relativism is a slippery slope. Although, I understand that your lie to your wife is motivated by self-preservation…a lie is a lie…even if it is a “white” lie. What if she doesn’t actually look good in that dress, and your answer encourages her to go out and buy 4 more just like it…oops!
CC

 

[hellopeople]

The truth is that you need more than a level head and good heart, you also need a “well-formed” conscience. Moral relativism is a slippery slope. Although, I understand that your lie to your wife is motivated by self-preservation…a lie is a lie…even if it is a “white” lie. What if she doesn’t actually look good in that dress, and your answer encourages her to go out and buy 4 more just like it…oops!
CC

I think that a level head and a good heart means that you have a well formed conscience (at least that is what I meant by it.)

 

[RB2]

I am in a college philosophy class on ethics. I can foresee the situation coming up where I will have to defend how the ends do not justify the means. I know someone is going to ask what if you have to do something wrong to save someone’s life. How to I respond to that?

I know that there are many non-Catholic members of this group, but I’m Catholic.
I believe what the Church teaches, and the Church definitively teaches
that the end does not justify the means,
and that certain kinds of acts are always immoral.
Always immoral.

It is not an open question for Catholics.
The definitive teaching of the Church on this point is required belief.
We are not free to believe that the end justifies the means.
We are not free to believe that nothing is always immoral.

.

Fact: The Catholic Church clergy and laypeople saved some 800,000 Jews from Hitlers genocide during WWII by issuing fake documents and baptismal certificates.
All of these activities, it should be noted were with the expressed approval and support of Pope Pius XII.

examiner.com/catholic-in-wilmington/hitler-the-war-and-the-pope-review

Obviously there are situations, to include war where simple rote principles do not suffice to inform to the situation.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Ok. If certain kind of acts are always immoral, (and I don’t really disagree with that) let’s be clear than-What I’m getting from you is that in some cases human life is less important than being moral.

No, I’m not putting words in your mouth-I’m just reading your post and applying it to the “Nazi-front door hiding Jews” situation we’ve been talking about.

Just to put my two cents here:

There are indeed, instances whre morality trumps human lives. Let’s narrow this by saying “Duty comes above human desires like Love.”

Let’s say I’m a devout Catholic who follows all the dictates of the Catholic Church and is very happily married as well as well (with children).
What if meet in the course of my journey through life somebody whom I’m attracted to and become convinced is my TRUE Soul Mate (if there can ever be such a thing)? What is He/She ALSO married with Children? Do I give in to my desires and feelings and leave my husband/wife and children to be with this other person? What about this other person? Should He/She leacver their Husband/Wife and Children to be with me?

What if both of use decide to not act on our feelings and desires towards each other and honor our vows to our Wife/Husband and Children?
Both because we made a commitment and because it would be Mortal sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

In THAT case-----yes, Duty and Morality come above Human Beings—particularly their desires and wants. And in a lot of other circumstances as well. I’m not going to be “absolutist” and say ALL circumstances (I’m not “wise” enough to say “all times”)—but I WOULD say in MOST circumstances.

 

[RobHom]

Inasmuch as I declare that I am a Catholic in faith and belief…I have a problem with the statement that the “ends to not justify the means”…

I personally believe that in many cases the means justifies the end… One cannot justify accepting evil because the means to defeat it might seem hard or distasteful. I fear that some of the so called justifications against defeating evil or satan are “namby-pamby”… but then I am responsible for myself.

To me, to refuse to reject and fight sin or wrong on an active level with all my person and self is to abdicate my personal responsibility for my personal behavior.

What I am saying is this: You cannot sit on the sidelines hiding behind rhetoric to justify doing nothing in the face of active evil…and to do so is a greater evil!