Exceptions to "ends don't justify the means"

[TheAdvocate]

We say that the ends don’t justify the means in Catholic theology. But aren’t we a bit absolute about it? Aren’t there legitimate exceptions, such as:

Say I’m driving my 77 year old dad around, helping him with errands. Suddenly, he get a heart attack right in the car. I speed down the freeway at 85 mph – let’s say it’s a Sunday morning, and it’s safe to do so in my judgment. My father’s life is saved. In fact, in hindsight, the doctors tell me that had I gotten there any later, even minutes, he would have died. Why? Because he went into cardiac arrest as soon as he was admitted. But they quickly brought him back.

So…I sped, violating civil law–an evil, right? An evil toward a good end, saving the life of my father. So are there exceptions to ends justifying the means? Or does that principle only apply to grave evil (what we’d call mortal sins).

John Paul the Great wrote something somewhere that “sometimes it is permissible to tolerate a lesser evil to avoid a greater one (does anyone remember where this is written?)”. So the lesser evil would be the “venial evil” that would be permissible toward a good end?

 

[Neithan]

Ends never justify the means when you are dealing with Natural Law: inherently immortal actions.

Driving fast down a freeway is not an inherently immoral action, it’s only sinful because otherwise it would be violating civil law without a good reason. We are free to violate civil law if we have good reasons for doing so. A good reason could be any moral obligation, such as saving someone’s life.

The manner of your driving could make it an inherently immoral action, however, such as driving in an excessively reckless way that you would be seriously endangering the lives of other drivers; in that case, the end would not justify the means.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Ends never justify the means when you are dealing with Natural Law: inherently immortal actions.

Driving fast down a freeway is not an inherently immoral action, it’s only sinful because otherwise it would be violating civil law without a good reason. We are free to violate civil law if we have good reasons for doing so. A good reason could be any moral obligation, such as saving someone’s life.

The manner of your driving could make it an inherently immoral action, however, such as driving in an excessively reckless way that you would be seriously endangering the lives of other drivers; in that case, the end would not justify the means.

I have a hard time believing that there are actions which are “inherently” immoral, meaning “immoral in and of themselves.” I mean think about it: the Church teaches that abortion, perjury, adultery, murder, are inherently morally evil, regardless of the circumstances or intentions. But the circumstances and intention are built right into the action. You cannot murder unintentionally, and the circumstance is simply “I take your life unlawfully.” (that’s the circumstance that makes it murder).

According to your post, driving irresponsibly would make it an inherently immoral action. But really, it’s the manner in which you drive, the circumstance here, that makes it inherently immoral. So circumstance qualifies this action.

 

[Newbie2]

I have a hard time believing that there are actions which are “inherently” immoral, meaning “immoral in and of themselves.” I mean think about it: the Church teaches that abortion, perjury, adultery, murder, are inherently morally evil, regardless of the circumstances or intentions. But the circumstances and intention are built right into the action. You cannot murder unintentionally, and the circumstance is simply “I take your life unlawfully.” (that’s the circumstance that makes it murder).

According to your post, driving irresponsibly would make it an inherently immoral action. But really, it’s the manner in which you drive, the circumstance here, that makes it inherently immoral. So circumstance qualifies this action.

Not quite. Take a “crime of passion”. Husband finds wife in bed with neighbor, goes Postal and kills neighbor. His circumstance might be mitigated by his loss of reason i.e. uncontrolable rage. Not that this excuses the fact that he murdered his neighbor, but his intent was not to murder him…yet he did. Action was murder, inherently evil. Intent was not to murder, but to lay a proper beating on neighbor. Intention was not “built in” the action.

A teenaged girl gets pregnant, is confused, anguished, not thinking right, and gets an abortion under the influence of her boyfriend and parents. Her action is inherently immoral, yet her intent may be mitigated by her state of mind.

Intention was not to have an abortion, yet the action is inherently immoral.

Now that’s not to say that intention mitigates the action to the point of zero culpability.

 

[thistle]

We say that the ends don’t justify the means in Catholic theology. But aren’t we a bit absolute about it? Aren’t there legitimate exceptions, such as:

Say I’m driving my 77 year old dad around, helping him with errands. Suddenly, he get a heart attack right in the car. I speed down the freeway at 85 mph – let’s say it’s a Sunday morning, and it’s safe to do so in my judgment. My father’s life is saved. In fact, in hindsight, the doctors tell me that had I gotten there any later, even minutes, he would have died. Why? Because he went into cardiac arrest as soon as he was admitted. But they quickly brought him back.

So…I sped, violating civil law–an evil, right? An evil toward a good end, saving the life of my father. So are there exceptions to ends justifying the means? Or does that principle only apply to grave evil (what we’d call mortal sins).

John Paul the Great wrote something somewhere that “sometimes it is permissible to tolerate a lesser evil to avoid a greater one (does anyone remember where this is written?)”. So the lesser evil would be the “venial evil” that would be permissible toward a good end?

I don’t agree with you. Whether you think its safe to drive at high speed is irrelevant and does not necessarily make it safe.
Driving at high speed would endanger your life, the lives of other motorists, pedestrians, and further endanger the life of your father.

 

[RB2]

Fact: The Catholic Church clergy and laypeople saved some 800,000 Jews from Hitlers genocide during WWII by issuing fake documents, baptismal certificates and more i.e. lying.
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 life and death & war ,where simple rote principles about lying and venial sins do not suffice to inform to the situation.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Whether or not driving at a particular speed is moral depends on the circumstances. Driving is not an intrinsically evil act. So if you have a good intention, and there are dire circumstances, you might exceed the speed limit without sinning. This is not a case of the end justifying the means. The intended end is good. The means (driving fast) is not intrinsically evil, and is in fact good in some circumstances. So in the right circumstances, both the end and the means would be good. In some other circumstances, the means would be bad and the act would be immoral.

Lying is intrinsically evil (i.e. intrinsically disordered, intrinsically illicit).

The Catechism: “A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means.” (CCC, n. 1753).

Pope John Paul II: “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.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

Lying is always a sin, regardless of intention or circumstances.

There are no exceptions when a negative precept forbids a particular type of act, an act that is, by its very nature, immoral:

Pope John Paul II: "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…

“The Church has always taught that one may **never **choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness” (Mt 19:17-18).” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 52.)

 

[Bookcat]

We say that the ends don’t justify the means in Catholic theology. But aren’t we a bit absolute about it? Aren’t there legitimate exceptions, such as:

Say I’m driving my 77 year old dad around, helping him with errands. Suddenly, he get a heart attack right in the car. I speed down the freeway at 85 mph – let’s say it’s a Sunday morning, and it’s safe to do so in my judgment. My father’s life is saved. In fact, in hindsight, the doctors tell me that had I gotten there any later, even minutes, he would have died. Why? Because he went into cardiac arrest as soon as he was admitted. But they quickly brought him back.

So…I sped, violating civil law–an evil, right? An evil toward a good end, saving the life of my father. So are there exceptions to ends justifying the means? Or does that principle only apply to grave evil (what we’d call mortal sins).

John Paul the Great wrote something somewhere that “sometimes it is permissible to tolerate a lesser evil to avoid a greater one (does anyone remember where this is written?)”. So the lesser evil would be the “venial evil” that would be permissible toward a good end?

Catechism:

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

If one sins in a venial way …to say save a life…such does not “justify” doing so…but such can mitigate guilt…and then too there is a question of "was the thing a sin anyhow…one has to look at each thing…

But speeding in a safe way to save a life…though may not be a sin at all…there is a difference between “kinds of law”…

but listen…we are to avoid sin yes. Amen! If we sin though in some venial way in trying to balance out the various virtues etc in the midst of the storms of life…like in saving a life…God knows our weakness etc and the state of things here…we sin venially often…he is very merciful. This is not to say that it is right or ok…but it can happen…for one can get in a place where one is faced with a Nazi at the door and one is unable to come up with the right mental reservation…etc…and one slips and lies…(and no I am not embracing situation ethics here…but just saying…sometimes in our weakness we can not find the right means and we sin …if such should happen let us go to God who loves us and is merciful…)

Again such does not “justify” any venial sin though. Though like I said …some things are simply not sins to begin with and others are mitigated greatly.

But yes let us strive to avoid all deliberate sin! And humble ourselves if we do sin…

 

[RB2]

but listen…we are to avoid sin yes. Amen! If we sin though in some venial way in trying to balance out the various virtues etc in the midst of the storms of life…like in saving a life…God knows our weakness etc and the state of things here…we sin venially often…he is very merciful.

We cannot be perfect as Adam or Eve before the fall, or the Virgin Mary or Christ on Earth. In our weakness we need to be aware of the median path we are taking in life and if it is tending towards more holiness in the right direction.
There are many rocks and stumblings on my path and the number and amt. of my venial sins will decrease as I travel through it.

 

[PLeeD]

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

The Catechism: “A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means.” (CCC, n. 1753).

These two quotes are mutually exclusive. One is right, and one is wrong. Which one agrees with the absolute truth?

 

[Bookcat]

These two quotes are mutually exclusive. One is right, and one is wrong. Which one agrees with the absolute truth?

It is objectively the case that lying is a sin.

The question is “what is lying”. Some would argue that providing such documents was not lying for one reason or another…(enter here the various arguments)

this is not a matter that has been settled.

But it does not change the fact that “lying” per se is a sin.

 

[RB2]

I think you need to figure it out for yourself as the above 2 posters are both theologians and they didnt touch the Pope comment with a 10 foot pole.

I stand by my statement that rote principles about venial sins do not neccessarily serve all situations. Those situations concerning life and death and war are problematic.

Lets say you’ve been taken hostage by a crazed mad man, you can probably be let go if you play him succesfully(psychologically) and promise that if he lets you go, you;ll mind your own business and not tell anyone. Oh, but lying is a sin! So you dont do it!

Now the police show up, and the police negotiator is dealing with the guy on the phone, he wants promises of a safe getaway and cash in exchange for your release. But the hostage negotiator is a faithful Christian and will not lie to this desperate man for you to save your life with false promises and schemes. Consequently , the madman gets more desperate and knotty and there is a failed hostage rescue, you lose, you die.

Obviously the society and Christians at large see a greater good to be served in these situations than obsessing over venial sins that occur daily in our lives as when we lose patience, show frustration to others, and commit a litany of other minor venial sins on almost a daily basis.

Which brings about a certain paradox:
So you wouldnt lie to a madman to save a persons life, but you would probably lose patience in a social situation or traffic with the same person and commit a venial sin that way.

 

[RB2]

We cannot be perfect as Adam or Eve before the fall, or the Virgin Mary or Christ on Earth. In our weakness we need to be aware of the median path we are taking in life and if it is tending towards more holiness in the right direction.
There are many rocks and stumblings on my path and the number and amt. of my venial sins will decrease as I travel through it.

Being aware of a median path in life can help us resolve our paradoxes.

 

[PLeeD]

I think you need to figure it out for yourself as the above 2 posters are both theologians and they didnt touch the Pope comment with a 10 foot pole.

It seems that intent is part of the equation.

Bearing false witness is obviously a sin, but that phrase is also a legal term. Maybe the phrase carries a connotation of seeking to profit personally from or to harm others with the lie? In that case the lie is a sin.

In the case of a white lie; say, to spare your wife’s feelings regarding your real opinion of her new outfit, the intent is not to take advantage of her. The intent might not constitute a sin? Likewise, lying to save innocent life would not be a sin.

Just speculating…

 

[Rascalking]

I think it’s clear to most people that there are definetly times when you have to do something evil in order to save lives. IE-Killing a Hilter before he can rise to power, etc, breaking the arm of a terrorist in order to get information where a bomb is.

Creating false documents to save Jews during the holocaust is another good example.

 

[Timothysis]

There are times when it is just and necessary to withhold information when one has no right to such information. The Church recognizes this and has termed the phrase “mental reservation” to distinguish that one may mentally reserve the truth of a matter to themselves when it is requested by a party who has no right to it.

For example, there is a rumor going around the office that Jack and Jill are having an affair. One day Jill confides to you that she had an affair with Jack, but that she is sorry for her actions and has ended it. Later, Little Boy Blue, who saw you talking to Jill, comes up and says “did Jill mention having an affair with Jack?!?!?” You have three choices;

1. Tell him the truth and, thus, violate the confidence that Jill has entrusted to you
2. Tell him “no,” and then consider yourself a “liar” for the ends do not justify the means
3. Mentally reserve to yourself the truth, recognizing that Little Boy Blue has no right to such knowledge and leave him in the state that he was in originally by answering “no”

It is not a lie to not reveal a confidence to one who has no right to it. If that were true, then a person could simply walk into a bank, ask for personal information of a depositor and walk away with their life savings. The word “secret” has the connotation of being “discreet,” meaning not to keep things from everyone but mainly from those who have no right to it. The same applies to the seal of confession. No one has a right to know what transpires between a priest and a penitent.

 

[Timothysis]

I think it’s clear to most people that there are definetly times when you have to do something evil in order to save lives. IE-Killing a Hilter before he can rise to power, etc, breaking the arm of a terrorist in order to get information where a bomb is.

Not true. One may not kill another because of what you fear they may do. That is called “murder.”

 

[Bookcat]

I think it’s clear to most people that there are definetly times when you have to do something evil in order to save lives. IE-Killing a Hilter before he can rise to power, etc, breaking the arm of a terrorist in order to get information where a bomb is.

Creating false documents to save Jews during the holocaust is another good example.

I am for one am not saying “there are definetly times when you have to do something evil in order to save lives”…but rather recognize that in our weakness to find the right way…a person may slip and sin (not that it is ok or good…or justified) venially…to say save a life…that in such a case…God is merciful and we should be too…

not saying one should break the arm of a terrorist etc…

and it remains true that the end does not “justify the means”

 

[Rascalking]

Not true. One may not kill another because of what you fear they may do. That is called “murder.”

I totally disagree with you-it’s obviously hypothetical.

Tell that to the families-if there is anyone left-of the people they’ve killed.

I heard they had “Christian” barbers who would cut the hair of the Nazi high ups during the WW II. They were trusted to cut the hair of the Nazis and not use the razors to kill the guards. They’re equal to the Nazis, in my opinion. When they die, they have alot to answer for.

 

[Timothysis]

I totally disagree with you-it’s obviously hypothetical.

Tell that to the families-if there is anyone left-of the people they’ve killed.

I heard they had “Christian” barbers who would cut the hair of the Nazi high ups during the WW II. They were trusted to cut the hair of the Nazis and not use the razors to kill the guards. They’re equal to the Nazis, in my opinion. When they die, they have alot to answer for.

You may disagree all you like, yet it has always been the traditional teaching of the Church that one may not commit an intrinsically evil act so that good may come from it. If the civil authority, in following the law of the land, decides to kill someone as a punishment for a crime, then that is one thing. However, to kill someone without just cause is called “murder,” and we are not permitted to do such a thing.