Ends vs. Means

[JMJ_coder]

The Church teaches that the ends do not justify the means. So a good end doesn’t justify evil means. Example: getting your daughter out of co-habitation doesn’t justify killing her boyfriend.

But, what if the ends are so extreme between acting and not acting.

Example: Terrorist in custody has placed a nuclear bomb in a major American city. Do you torture him to get the information of where exactly it is placed?

At stake is millions of lives that will be lost when this bomb goes off, not to mention all the aftereffects. Is there a point at where the consequences are so grave that normally immoral acts, such as torture, murder, etc. become necessary to safeguard human life.

Assume for this example, for the sake of simplicity, that the threat is real and the terrorist will honestly and accurately answer if plied with enough brutality. Also assume that this a rogue, single terrorist acting alone or part of a small terror group and not part of a government that we can go to war over to prevent this

 

[LumenGent]

Both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have condemned this form of torture, especially if done for sadistic pleasure or for sheer vengeance would be intrinsically evil in and of itself and hence morally unjustifiable under any circumsatnces. However once we make the appropriate distinctions, we can see that legally imposed punishment to obtain the truth such as sleep deprovation can be used since this is not morally unjustifiable.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The main problem is that it is a slippery slope.

Suppose that the terrorist is determined enough to withstand any torture to himself, but he has an innocent one year old child, and he would quickly cave once you started torturing and maiming his kid. Would that be okay?

There was a television series called La Femme Nikita where the anti-terrorist organization would do whatever they deemed necessary to fight terrorist, without any regard for morality. If you are going to let the ends justify the means, who is to say that they are wrong?

 

[Newbie2]

The Church teaches that the ends do not justify the means. So a good end doesn’t justify evil means. Example: getting your daughter out of co-habitation doesn’t justify killing her boyfriend.

But, what if the ends are so extreme between acting and not acting.

Example: Terrorist in custody has placed a nuclear bomb in a major American city. Do you torture him to get the information of where exactly it is placed?

At stake is millions of lives that will be lost when this bomb goes off, not to mention all the aftereffects. Is there a point at where the consequences are so grave that normally immoral acts, such as torture, murder, etc. become necessary to safeguard human life.

Assume for this example, for the sake of simplicity, that the threat is real and the terrorist will honestly and accurately answer if plied with enough brutality. Also assume that this a rogue, single terrorist acting alone or part of a small terror group and not part of a government that we can go to war over to prevent this

Moral principles are not modified by the magnitude of the ends.

It’s interesting to me, though, as to what level of pain/discomfort defines torture. For example:

Sleep Deprevation Torture? My guess would say probably not.
“Truth serum” i.e. pharmaceutal assistance to loosten the tongue? Probably not?
Waterboarding? Questionable, at best.
Inflicting pain a la Dustin Hoffman in “Marathon Man”? Probably yes.

And what about all the stuff in between?

Methinks there is a very grey area between “Making uncomfortable” and “torturing” to get information and therein lies the moral problem. As well, does each individual’s tolerance to discomfort/pain factor in? Methinks so. Depriving a Navy Seal of sleep or dunking him in a tank of ice water wouldn’t faze him, but I’d cave like a deck of cards under the same treatment.

 

[nkbeth]

Here is what Cardinal Newman said:

'The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.’

newmanreader.org/works/apologia/part7.html

 

[Is_it_okay_to]

Bop on over to Insidecatholic.com to read Mark Shea’s article from 5/5/09. It is precisely on this topic, and he is opposed to any use of torture. But his article has generated many, many replies, both pro and con, and some with emotional heat, that cover the subject pretty well. You may not come out with a definite answer to your question, but you will see the crux of the argument.

 

[Biggie]

I would insist that the end does not justify all means. Certainly, the end does justify some means.

The evil of war, therefore, can be justified. The evil of killing, therefore, can be justified.

There is a security and self-righteousness in formulaic answers to epic real life problems but I would contend this is a sterile religiosity we are not afforded. The true work of a well formed Christian conscience is in the discernment of difficult moral quandaries.

 

[nkbeth]

The evil of war, therefore, can be justified. The evil of killing, therefore, can be justified.

Do you mean that the physical evil of killing can be justified? It can be justified in exceptional cases, e.g. in self-defense or in a just war. In these cases it IS justified by the end.

But the moral evil or sin of killing (when there IS no justification for the physical act) can NEVER be justified.

Of course even killing in a just war or for self-defense can be a moral evil, if the killer has a sinful intention (e.g. revenge or cruelty).

I don’t know if it is “sterile religiosity” to you, but this is how I see it now.

 

[nkbeth]

Sorry, this a second answer to the same post. I tried to edit my first answer but got timed-out.

The evil of war, therefore, can be justified. The evil of killing, therefore, can be justified.

Do you mean the physical evil of killing? I assume you do because moral evil or sin could never be justified. Justifiable killing is not morally evil.

 

[Biggie]

Sorry, this a second answer to the same post. I tried to edit my first answer but got timed-out.

Do you mean the physical evil of killing? I assume you do because moral evil or sin could never be justified. Justifiable killing is not morally evil.

Evil is evil. An evil does not become a good for lack of culpability.

Killing is an evil. The end of defense of innocent life does not transform killing as a means to that end into a good, but it may justify it so that culpability is not imputed. In which case, the end justified the means and the actor has chosen the lesser of evils.